who here makes over 10k per month after taxes???

[LSK]

Because that's who's taxes would go up if you make $200,000 per year.

Does anyone even know anyone who makes this much? Do these people plan to suddenly stop spending because their income tax goes up 3%????

At 36%
$200,000 x (100-36)/100 = $128,000 per year after taxes
$10,666.67 per week after taxes

At 39%
$200,000 x (100-39)/100 = $122,000 per year after taxes
$10,166.67 per week after taxes

So people who were making $10,667 per month will suddenly stop spending money if they are "only" making $10,167 per month now??????

[Caliman73]

1. I agree with your point, but

to be fair, there are other taxes as well. State, SDI, Medicare, and other taxes lower that amount but your basic concept is correct. I myself make nowhere near that amount. I do know a couple of people who make around 200k or so. They aren't hung up on the tax rates. They are circumspect about what has helped them to attain their level of wealth.

[LSK]

9. except they stop paying FICA tax after 105k, so they most pay half a year

and then they get out of that tax, while the rest of us keep paying it all year.

Imagine not paying your FICA tax around July for the rest of the year. Must be nice.

[notesdev]

13. Math lessons

36% -> 39% = a 3% share of total income that is taken above the previous, not a 3% increase in rate.

The increase in the tax rate, as a percentage is ((39-36)/36) = 3/36 = 1/12 = 8.25%

3% of your income is the amount, but the increase in the rate is 8.25%.


To illustrate this more clearly, take a hypothetical person paying 10% of income in taxes. If the next year they must pay 20%, their tax rate just doubled (100% increase). A 10% increase in taxes would be a rate of 11%.

[LAGC]

2. The kicker is, the rich tend not to spend the money, they horde instead.

Whereas lower-class people have to spend most of their income just on basic necessities, the rich have plenty left over to just sock away and amass wealth for its own sake.

There's a reason they are called the "idle rich"... we definitely need to bring back some of those high tax brackets that we had 60 years ago, when the rich truly paid their fair share and we paid down all that national debt that had accumulated after WWII.

[Divine Discontent]

6. horders - exactly. there's millions of them in our country of 300+ million. To give them any kind

of lowered rate, like Dumya did, was a gift for a bunch of elitist tight ass*s. These are the type who do not help the homeless, charities, and God knows their own families. This doesn't apply to all the wealthy in America, but a significant amount of them. I know several people who are either millionaires, or who make 125K+ a year. I'm not close to any of them, because they're embarrassingly self-centered. I have one upper middle class immediate family member, and he would yell "get away from me!" to every homeless person that approaches him, and I won't give other specifics, but he's heartless. I also see wealthy celebs and business types where I work - and a majority make me wanna spew! That's why when rich people like Gore, Moore and others concentrate on trying to better our country, I deeply admire them.

[ejpoeta]

25. that's why the tax cuts for rich meme is bs. and unemployment and social programs are most benefici

al. the poor will spend that money because they ahve no money. and the unemployed will pay their bills and maybe print up their resume and go to job interviews. give the rich more money and they just sock it away somewhere. they don't need it.

[newtothegame]

32. "Whereas lower-class people have to spend most of their income just on basic necessities"

There's a lot of folks for whom this is not the case though. My brother, though certainly the exception and not the rule, spends virtually none of his income on necessities because it's all subsidized: his apartment is Section 8, his food is paid for by food stamps, and his transportation (city bus lines) is free because of his income level. His income is nearly all spent on his drinking/nicotine habit or gambling.

[htuttle]

57. But the point is, he spends it

All the money he gets makes its way back into the economy almost immediately, rather than sitting around in some offshore family trust fund for years.

[Egalitariat]

36. How do you horde? If you don't spend it, where does it go?

[MilesColtrane]

53. Hedge funds?

:shrug:

[JuniperLea]

89. Off shore accounts...

Of course.

[Luciferous]

70. Ha, my in-laws are a perfect example of this.

My mother-in-law made a lot of money in the stock market, my father-in-law is an executive at a large biomedical corporation making more than 250,000 a year, and they both worked for the government for 20+ years so on top of that they get pensions. They live in a middle class suburb, shop at Target, and drive relatively cheap cars.

[TheKentuckian]

3. It is complete nonsense that does not comprehend the concept of diminishing returns

Because 90% was to high a rate and slowing investment then the same goes for anything above zero.

Meanwhile the sweet spot was passed some time ago. If that capital is not reinvested to create then it is utterly wasted for broad impact and for most people the pie shrinks regardless of "growth".

[Lucian]

4. What they make per month I make in a year.

:grr:

[Regret My New Name]

20. Do you only have part-time employment?

Independent contractor or something?

[Lucian]

51. Full-time retail.

[Regret My New Name]

86. You must mean after taxes, right? Where are you from? What's the min wage there?

Must be hard to get by, aye?

[justabob]

33. me too

I *might* break 10k this year. I am averaging about 200/week for 20-25 hours of work. Sigh

[Hannah Bell]

5. knr

[pnwmom]

7. People who make that much money know it's not a 3% increase.

From the base of a 36% tax, it's more than an 8 % increase to arrive at the 39%. I don't know whether an 8% increase in their taxes would make a difference. I'll leave that to the economists. But we should have our facts straight on what the actual numbers are, not pretend that it's really a 3% increase.

By the way, the estate tax would go from nothing now to about 50% on anything over $1 million. A strong argument can be made that that level would impact many small businesses and farms.

[LSK]

10. the math is pretty simple to follow

Can you provide some formula that I am missing? My basic assumption is a yearly salary of 200k. Tax rate goes from 36 to 39%. What am I missing?

[pnwmom]

15. No. Saying that the tax RATE rises from 36 to 39 percent is not the same as saying

there is a 3% INCREASE to an individual's taxes. The increase is calculated relative to the base, which is 36. What fraction of 36 is 3? One-twelfth. That fraction, which equals more than 8%, is the actual increase.

[LiberalAndProud]

18. No. From 33% to 36% is a 3% increase.

[dbmk]

22. 3% percentage _points_

Not 3%. A 3% increase on something is something*1,03.

[pnwmom]

42. You're wrong. I'll try to explain it another way.

If the rate is currently 10% and it is raised to 20%, that is NOT an increase of 10%. (20 - 10.) It is an increase of 100% -- the actual tax DOUBLED from 10% to 20%.

In exactly the same way, a rate that is raised from 36 to 39% has not increased by 3%. (39 - 36.) It is an increase of more than 8%. The actual tax went up by one-twelfth.

[Hansel]

82. The rate on the margin increased to 39%.

Yes the increase in percentage on the margin is an 8% increase, but it is a pretty meaningless way of looking it. You could end up with 1 dollar that you have to pay 39%. That is definitely no where near close to an 8% increase on their taxes.

And in reality, the actual percentage increase in terms of overall increase is dependent upon how much net earned income the person has that exceeds the 36% marginal rate, not on a base of 36%. Most people will pay less far less than 1% increase. Even if you net $5,000,000 your overall increase does not reach 8% over what they are currently paying. In fact, you are still under 3% at a net of $1,000,000 over margin.

[hugo_from_TN]

74. Can we start a DU Remedial Math Group?

[trotsky]

27. 2 items.

#1 You are worried about a percentage increase in the tax RATE. But then you fret about "an individual's taxes." Well, which is it? Because while the RATE may be increasing by 8%, their TAXES are most certainly not.

#2 Related to the above, and decreasing the impact further is the fact that the increase is in the MARGINAL rate, not the TOTAL tax rate.

Don't buy into the Republican propaganda to feel sorry for the wealthiest Americans.

[pnwmom]

43. I didn't say I was "worried" about the increase happening. I think it is important,

for the sake of our credibility, to be accurate with the way we use numbers and speak about percentages.

You're right that a further complication, the effect of which varies wildly depending on whether the person makes $200K a year or $200 million K a year, is the difference between marginal and total tax rates.

I think it's wrong to tax a NYC fireman with overtime and his working wife, making a combined income of $200K, at the same rate that we tax Warren Buffet. (Actually higher, because the couple whose income is almost all salary will pay more than someone making money in capital gains.) We should be looking at overhauling the whole structure, not focusing all our attention at the salaried people above $200K -- as if that NYC couple is in the same ballpark as Bill Gates.

[trotsky]

62. You need to face political reality.

"Overhauling the whole structure" is hardly gonna fly - and worse, if you try, you have to let the Republicans in on that and then we'll DREAM of today as the "good old days" of tax policy. How many NYC firemen and their families will be affected by increasing the top marginal rate by 3 percentage points - I'll let you figure that out. Let's not forget those rates are on adjusted income, too.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. If you have to pay estate taxes it means you have a crappy accountant.

There are all kinds of ways to avoid paying estate tax through the use of trusts, etc. Most estates avoid paying a significant amount of tax if they've done their estate planning sensibly. And when the issue first came up, the claim that estate taxes ruin family farms and small business was quickly debunked when nobody could identify a single family farm that had to be sold or broken up on account of estate taxes.

[pnwmom]

46. There are trusts but, other than combining the exemptions of husband

and wife (which IS useful, otherwise the children would have the advantage of only one personal exemption for their two parents), the legal ones don't do much to lower estate taxes -- unless they involve giving money to charity instead of paying it out in taxes.

Charitable trusts do lower estate taxes -- but then the donated money is going to charity, not to heirs.

I personally know of a ranch that had to be sold to pay a tax bill of more than 40% -- and the tax bill was due within 9 months of the man's death, so there wasn't much time to get a good offer. I would like to see your link showing that this issue has been "debunked" and that "nobody could identify a single family farm that had to be sold or broken up on account of estate taxes."

[MedicalAdmin]

48. You obviously have never looked at the TO and board of charitable trusts.

They are rife with relatives and kids of the rich. And let's not forget the ever popular dodge of hiring "consultants" to write "reports."

Honestly tho' it is easy to manipulate the rules and still be completely legal.

I wonder if the owners of the ranch had competant estate planning, or if, like my father, the deceased just left it to chance. Both my dad and my graddad pissed away huge estates in probate because they REFUSED to take good advice or act on it. Both were what would now be described as libertarians.


FYI - I think the exception should be 3 million and should have a COLA . That amount would allow for small biz /farms/ranches to be exempted and the ones worth more could do competant estate planning. Waddayathink?

[pnwmom]

50. Your idea makes sense to me. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

66. Here ya go:

http://www.njelderlawestateplanning.com/2006/04/articles/truths-about-the-estate-tax-debunking-the-popular-myths/

According to this article, a New York Times investigative report was unable to locate a single family farm that had to be sold to pay estate taxes.

And there are other methods of avoiding the estate tax caps. For example, there's the "disclaimer trust" in which a spouse sets up a trust by which the surviving spouse can disclaim his/her inheritance from the decedent spouse, instead directing it to be placed in a trust for the surviving spouse's benefit,to be distributed to their children on that spouse's death. That way the entire amount of the decedent's spouse's estate does not go into the surviving spouse's estate, and may thereby prevent the estate tax from kicking in upon the death of that spouse. I am personally familiar with this. It works.

I stand by my original statement: If you have a good accountant and estate attorney, your estate probably will be off the hook for most if not all estate and inheritance taxes. Very few family farms or small businesses have been or will be affected.

[Melissa G]

37. Yeah, I don't have a problem with living/working tax increases, but I do have some concerns

about estate taxes and I can kind of agree on the Death Tax moniker. 50% seems a bit steep.

[pnwmom]

47. I'm with you. The higher end income tax can go up -- although I wish we would

stop focussing on the two-earner couples making a combined $200K and REALLY raise the rate for the super-wealthy -- but I think going back to a 50% tax on estates over a million is too high. Again, we need to make the rate a lot more progressive.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. Interesting concerns. I note you do not notice that all couples

are not treated equally, and that your example couple, if same sex, would wind up paying more tax than those whom you casually refer to as 'a couple' as if that was all it took, two partners. The middle class people harmed by that injustice get told to be more patient. For decades.

[pnwmom]

61. That's not necessarily true. When a married couple has two incomes

that are very different, they can pay less in taxes than two singles. However, when a married couple has two incomes that are about the same, they can actually owe a marriage PENALTY -- i.e., higher taxes than if they were still single. For years, my sister was in this situation.

My father and his partner also made similar incomes, so it made more financial sense for them NOT to marry.

[Raineyb]

59. Why? The person who earned that money is dead. No one is entitled to just have money handed

to them tax free.

Even people who find money on the street have to pay taxes on it if they end up keeping it.

[Melissa G]

85. Paying 50% to keep your family business going seems a bit excessive.

50% off assets gone may not let the family business keep going.

[Gormy Cuss]

41. Okay, then let's use an example.

Someone has 300K in taxable income. Under the current tax rates, that last 100K is taxed at 36% and the amount owed is $36,000. Under the new 39% rate, the amount owed is $39,000. That's S3,000 dollars. Hardly a bump to someone in that income bracket.

[Skip Intro]

8. Cannot relate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39Jtf3rLecs

[LiberalAndProud]

11. Your formula disregards the fact that we are talking about a graduated tax.

Only income *over* $200,000 would be taxed at the highest rate.


It's a no brainer. We just don't have the financial backing to bribe convince our lawmakers that this needs to happen.

[LSK]

12. yeah, that was assumed that it would be an increase for only over 200k

200k individuals
250k couples

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Graduated.

Someone making $200,000 annually (adjusted gross, after deductions) this year has a top tax rate of 33%.
The first $6,050.00 is tax free. - $0.00
The next $4,375.00 is taxed at a rate of 10% - $437.50.
The next $25,625.00 is taxed at a rate of 15% - $3,843.75

etc, etc.

Although their top tax rate is 33%, they will pay $50,440.25 in taxes in 2010. The actual percentage is 25.22%.

eta: Keep in mind this does not include Social Security or Medicare. *Those* are a flat percentage of income, until you hit that magic number where it is tax free.

[pnwmom]

16. I think we should also be asking why households with incomes of $200 K a year --

usually because both spouses are working -- should pay the same tax rate as those making $2 million or $200 million a year.

[tsuki]

17. Republicon talking point. I'm a small business person, most of the

people I hang with are small business people, and none of us has an estate worth one million cash. And the small farms in my area are the same.

[LiberalAndProud]

19. What's your income?

Your estate may be worth multi-millions. That's a property tax issue, not an income tax issue.

[tsuki]

21. I know my bottom line. Assets, property, inventory and income less liabilities

does not equal one million. Before the crash, I was over a million, but real property and income has seen a 60+% drop here. It's dropped so far that I decided to retire, and it is not going to recover any time soon

[LiberalAndProud]

29. That's rough.

I hope the liabilities aren't too heavy, and that you have a long and lovely retirement.

[tsuki]

60. It could have been, but I knew we would have a recession once the

war ended. I never thought we'd have a recession/depression during the war. Now that is unheard of.

I started downsizing and selling off inventory in 2006 preparing. This year, the last employee left. He was a young man with a traveling bug.

The building is up for sale. It is worth more than I paid, but not much more. I'll end up in the black.

Thanks for the lovely wishes. I am enjoying my retirement.

[pnwmom]

64. Sorry about your 60% drop! But there are still plenty of small businesses and farms

that are worth more than a million, and might need to be sold to pay estate taxes, if they return to the levels of 10 years ago.

[Melissa G]

39. That is not necessarily true. It often depends if you own your building.

I suspect the farming situation is the same. Dirt, with or without buildings, can be expensive. Yes, it works for the Big Business folks too. They often hide big profits for themselves under small business cover, but that does not mean it is not actually true for small business.
Parking regulations are a recent, excellent example of this in Austin. A diminishing change in the ratio of bldg sq footage and parking needed for commercial small businesses allowed me to get a change of use permit for my small business, but it also made a bunch of big developers were very happy.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. No, it's actually a good point: why should the highest marginal tax rate start at > 200K?

Maybe we need several more tiers, say 42% starting at 500K and 50% at one million.

[MedicalAdmin]

55. No shit. Cash flow is NOT equal to capital.

Most small businesses do NOT own their building or other tangible assets. Some do.

But for those of us who rent, we tend not to have tangible capital that can be liquidated or used as collateral in any significant amounts.

[tsuki]

73. Ohh, you are good. I have been trying to teach about cash flow, margins, and assets

for years. When the business stopped here, a lot of people learned what cash flow is, and why they have to have a realistic margin of profit.

I think that is the downfall of many small businesses.

[pnwmom]

63. You probably don't live in an expensive area. In places like NYC and its suburbs,

or much of California, just owning a median priced home would put your estate at the half million mark. Before you ever added in the value of a small business or farm.

[tsuki]

72. If you have a farm in NYC, I guess it would be over a million.

I live in one of the most (previously) inflated markets in the US. A zero line residential lot sold for 800K less than 2 years ago, and not even on the water.

Then came the crash, severe deflation, foreclosures, bankruptcies, and going out of business sales. Empty buildings and real estate signs everywhere, a 60% drop that many do not accept. One of my main (former) competitors is bankrupt, and I am hearing another is on the skids.

Farm prices have dropped also as developers have either bankrupted or constricted.

If you are so worried about your estate, find an estate planner and develop a plan. It's easy. We had one in case Son wanted to continue the business. (He did not.)

Otherwise, if your estate is worth a million, cash out. Why work 60 hours a week to hand it over to your heirs tax free so they can go all the places you always wanted to.

[pnwmom]

76. Your area is severely depressed compared to two years ago.

However, there are still many small business owners in other parts of the country that WOULD be adversely affected by an estate tax beginning at one million.

We're not interested in selling our home or "cashing out" now. Why would parents work hard to leave anything to their "heirs"? Because they love them and trust them to continue the business, or to put any other inheritance to good use.

You had an estate plan for your business. Why would you suggest everyone else should sell out?

[DailyGrind51]

23. Only in my dreams!

[Clovis Sangrail]

24. our tax base is so screwed up it should be scrapped entirely

saying people with income over $171,850 pay x% tax and then allowing myriad adjustments to that income number is stupid.
Anybody who makes enough money *will* be paying accountants to find the loopholes needed to lower their effective tax burden.. and not everything they make is actually considered "income".

Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the world, pointed this out by noting that his effective tax rate was *lower* than his secretary's.

The problem is our tax code has a million small fixes applied to it.. so good some bad ... with the net effect that people with enough money to hire accountants and financial planners can seriously game the system.

[pnwmom]

45. You're right. Warren Buffet should be taxed at a much higher rate

than a married couple with a household income of $200K. Instead, that couple, since their income is almost all salary, will pay at a higher rate than someone like Buffet who makes money through buying and selling -- and pays mostly at capital gains rates.

[Clovis Sangrail]

88. his tax rate is lower than that of a secratary with an income of $60k/year

instead of just applying more bandaids the system needs to be actually fixed.

[markbark]

26. Check Your Figures

$10,166.67 per week = approx. $530K a year.

Ah... I see: the upper figures are labeled "per week" the bottom figure is labeled "per month"
<emily latella voice> Never mind!

[LSK]

54. yeah, i caught myself on the bottom but didnt fix it above n/t

[old mark]

28. Maybe they should just work a little harder - Hard work is the American Way to Success!!!

Isn't that the bullshit they always try to sell us?


mark

[One_Life_To_Give]

30. Same was said about Luxury Tax IIRC

But the rich did stop buying. Perhaps on principal or just thought they could wait out congress. If they believe the tax will get reversed in 2012. Then they just may decide to wait it out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. The luxury tax does discourage consumption

Whether this is a bad thing, whether it is fair and whether it is sensible is a different question. My point is that tacking on a sales tax is different than raising the income tax.

I build small boats. My main client builds larger boats. If he can't sell the larger boats, he'll use his shop by reclaiming my marketspace.

[MedicalAdmin]

56. Yes - sales taxes are regressive (mostly)

Yes, even the luxery taxes because they would impact a lower income person attempting to purchase a luxury item (example - truck driver works for 30 years and decides to buy an S class mercedes with his hard earned money for a retirement car vs. a member of the billionaires boys club who buys one a week just for the hell of it - a luxury tax would be much more onerous on the truck driver as a percentage of income and disposable income).

Income are less so as long as they are progressive and capital gains tax the least.

[One_Life_To_Give]

71. My recollection is the Rich responded Emotionally

to the imposition of the Luxury Tax. Not a question of their ability to keep spending. But a desire to not contribute to what they felt unfairly targeted them. So my point is that how they feel about the reasons a tax is made has perhaps more to do with how the rich will respond at an emotional level, and hence govern their actions. As opposed to what they can logically afford.

[SoCalDem]

75. We need taxes on "luxury-non essentials"

There was a 10% excise/luxury tax for ages, on things like cosmetics, jewelry, fashion sunglasses, perfumes etc.

Think about the "sales" you routinely see for gold jewelry.. Big banners announcing "70% off".. Does anyone in their right mind think that the "regular" prices are "correct"? Many places run a perpetual "50-70% off" sale.

A better approach would be to price this stuff correctly in the first place and slap a 10% excise/luxury tax on it.

Back when I was a kid, I worked in my Aunt's dress shop & we had costume jewelry that sold for $2.00 (you can buy the same stuff on ebay now for about $50:rofl:..)..NO ONE refused to buy it because there was an additional tax on it...and back then we even paid sales taxes on food & medicine.

[nashville_brook]

31. if trickle-down, laffer-curve economics really worked, our streets would be paved with gold by now.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. Your two examples would take home the same

Since each makes $200K there would be no tax increase on any of the income.

I think what you want is an example like this:

$300K/year

36% vs. 39% = difference of 3% of amount over 200 = $3000/year = $58/week

[joeglow3]

44. Your calculation has a number of flaws in it

1. The top rate would be 39.6% and not 39%.

2. We have a progressive tax structure, so their first $200,000 of income would be at all the lower brackets (NOT 36/39%). Thus, someone making $200,000 would see NO change in their taxes, based on your calculation. They would only notice the difference on each dollar OVER $200,000 a year they make.

Thus, the reality actually supports your conclusion a LOT more than your analysis.

[Pisces]

49. I do not think 200k a year equals rich, I'm thinking the people at 500k and more

are the ones we should be taxing. At 39.6% of 1 million, that is a take home of 600K and some change. It does exponentially hurt the more you make. But 200k in any metropolitan area is
not rich.


On edit: I use to make 200k a year and I never felt rich. I never minded paying my taxes which were pre-bush tax cuts. In fact I wish I were making that now and would gladly pay 43% for that income.

[pnwmom]

65. Right. 200K in any large metro area, particularly when it is the result of

two salaries, is not "rich." Not when it can cost more than half a million to buy the median housing (3 bds, 1.5 baths) in such an area.

[LSK]

80. where do you live??? I lived in Chicagoland my entire life

It is incredibly easy to find a house costing less than 300k. A mortgage on such a house costs nowhere even close to 10k per month. Maybe half of that. MAYBE.

So where do you live? To come up with such a statement? Where is this metro area that is larger than Chicago????

[pnwmom]

81. Millions of people live in cities on the west and east coast that fall in that category. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

67. $200,000 or under is a protectected bracket for singles under the proposed plan.

$250,000 for married couples.

Should it be $400,000 for married couples when both work? I don't subscribe to the notion. It's still only one household.

[Roland99]

58. Um, it's not a straight 39%. It's an extra 3% on *taxable* income *over* $200,000.

[MajorChode]

79. Exactly

Which means if you make $200,001 (in taxable income, not gross) you get a 3 cent tax increase. It's only people who make significantly more than $200K who are going to pay any significant dollar amount which translates into nobody who could be considered within a cab ride of middle class regardless of where you live.

[anarch]

68. that seems like an absurdly huge amount of money to me

I mean, shit, are people I see all around me actually making that much cash? It's no wonder so many of them seem to have cars and be able to buy clothes and stuff.

I guess if you're supporting a family of four or something, on a single income, that probably doesn't go very far. The people I suspect are generally making that much don't generally seem to fall into that category, though.

I can't even imagine making that much...I could actually pay off my debt, could afford to buy some new pants, and might even go get a checkup at the doctor. If I was making that much scratch, I'd be happy to contribute my fair share for the common good...although, I say that now, but maybe having a whole bunch of money does something to your soul that makes you more selfish, I dunno.

[Luciferous]

69. My in-laws make more than that, but I don't think that raising

their taxes will hurt them much. They also live pretty simply, so I don't think their spending will be affected at all.

[Pavulon]

77. Who has has 296,000 in student loans?

wife does and it HURTS to make that payment. We both work and I don't mind paying a fair share. However dont assume a person with that income is banking much after paying their obligations..

[Regret My New Name]

87. That's a lot in student loans.

Lots of PhDs?

[Pavulon]

90. wife's

md and slavery residency pay.

[backwoodsbob]

78. between myself and the wife...we may bring home half that.

And I realize we are fortunate to have what we have.If our taxes go up a few bucks a week...so be it.

5k a month is a lot and isn't at the same time but we are FAR more fortunate than many.Pop us for an extra 50 a month and we eat out one less night a month?...oh wait...that means I have to eat my wifes version of sesame chickin...and that isn't a good thing...trust me :toast:

[RandomThoughts]

83. Its about power and hope.

If they lose anything, it proves they can lose everything. It is all about direction, they must always continue to get more, or they feel that it is possible they will lose all.

It is an infinite thing.

If they lose the give away by tax breaks, then people will see that things can change for the better, and give people hope. They fight against that stuff.


Same reason they fought against public option.


Remember in the movie Braveheart, where the corrupt rotting thing said to Robert The Bruce that he increased his family land and gold, and that is what he is suppose to do. That is the voice from that side, not about anything but more with an infinite eye on things.

Remember this line
Robert's Father: At last, you know what it means to hate. Now you're ready to be a king.
Robert the Bruce: My hate will die with you.

In Braveheart, the father of Robert the Bruce was a symbol for a spiritual voice that many actually listen to. I don't, and many don't, but some do. Some think hating is the path, some loving, and each side thinks of their kings in that perspective.

Do you see that is dark side doctrine, exact same as Star Wars, same thoughts.

[FreeJoe]

84. I'm comfortably over that threshold

I'm the single earner in a family of four (wife, 2 kids). I'm not "sit around" rich, but I make a very comfortable income. If my taxes go up next year, it won't have a major impact. I adjust my budget every year. I assess how much I'm spending now, how much I plan to spend in the future, and what age I think I'll want to retire at. If my taxes go up, I'll make adjustments. I'll cut my current spending. I'll lower my expected retirement spending, so I'll also cut back on how much I'm saving. I might also make some adjustments in how I save (less money in things taxed as income, more in investments that are tax sheltered or produce capital gains).

Honestly, a tax increase from 36% to 39.6% isn't going to have a huge impact on my life. I've made much bigger adjustments because of the decline in my retirement and college savings. Those have necessitated higher savings rates which have lowered my current spending.

I've seen references to "hording" money above, and I have to confess that I don't understand what that really means. The money that I don't spend doesn't just sit around. I lend some of it indirectly to home purchasers, car buyers, and credit card users by depositing some of it in the bank. I loan some of it to local, state, and our federal government by purchasing their bonds. I also use some of it to buy shares in US and foreign companies that employee people and produce goods and services that (I hope) people want to buy. Eventually, I'll spend all of that money or give it to my kids who I'm sure will spend it. In the mean time, I think it is being put to good use.

[roody]

91. not me