Nick Anderson for September 17, 2010

^ So, where would you draw the line? $50,000?

^ Meaning that jack thinks the upper bound is too low.

I see nothing wrong with that reasoning.

I bet you if the Republicans hadn’t been trying to beat Democrats up with a deficit cudgel this whole time, this whole “just let them keep going for everyone” thing would have gone over without a hitch. Dems had planned from the start to extend them for the people really hurting. Not repealing ALL of the tax cuts hurts the deficit a lot, but repealing it for the people who receive 30% of the entire country’s income is someone “less hurting.” Still not enough on its own, though.

$250 K means FIVE TIMES the median income in the U.S., well for those that are actually employed. Considering the tax cut is actually for folks brining in over a million- the numbers are relatively few, but sure impact how many have to pay more to make up for what they do NOT PAY.

I’m not sure why anybody would want to pay more in taxes so that the very rich can get a big discount. They got one 9 years ago and look at how the economy has done.

As it happens, the top 1% pay an adjusted rate of around 21%, whereas the middle class pays around 30%. Well?

I’d be willing to make $250,00 and pay more taxes – I’d end up with more than I have now. Anybody above $250,000 want to trade with me?

jack, your reasoning is…odd. You think that people making $250,000 a year won’t have enough to retire on? For the record, I make more than that. In a good year, a lot more. I see nothing wrong with letting the Bush tax cuts expire. As it is, the wealthy pay less both in absolute terms and in terms of percentage of income than even the middle class.

“The left is losing their moderates. Why is that? A lot of people on the moderate left make a $250000 a year.”

The Right is , as well. There’s a pretty vocal party backing that up.

While all of you were arguing about whether to cut taxes and on who or increase spending and on what, the Chinese bought Yen and gold set new record highs. Do you know why?

mrdoody asked : “…the Chinese bought Yen and gold set new record highs. Do you know why?”

A yen looks fetching set in gold and hanging from a chain?

Hmm, having been around the real median in earnings, and retired with enough to live on, but not much more, I’d sure like to “suffer” by paying more taxes on a quarter million a year.

Forbes Magazine has an interesting article on our “poor downtrodden billionaires” in the U.S., and another on how they relate to billionaires around the world. Robert Reich last night on Maher pointed out that just ONE billion of those folks income would provide 20,000 teachers- how many jobs do their riches really provide? Hmm, lately it’s been pink slip to protect those profits.

The tax take is not coming close to paying the Nation’s bills, thus huge deficits as far as the eye can see. And so many find reasons why they should not pay more taxes, which has been going on for decades. What’s the game here - hoard all you can while you can because the Country’s going down the tube anyway?

The problems the Democrats face in their tax demagoguing is that $250,000 in NYC for example is middle class. 31 Democratic congressmen up for re-election said that they will not support the $250,000 cutoff. They want to get re-elected. Maybe $1M might fly.

Most people now understand that however much they pay in taxes the government will gladly spend that and more. If we felt that they were genuinely trying to balance the budget we might be more sympathetic but we know in reality it is per FDR tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect

JFK was Super Rich

Yes, well I thought not. Sort of explains why the country is in such a financial mess.

A very simple number set. When Reagan took office, the national debt, after roughly 200 years, was $907 billion. When Clinton placed his first budget, the debt was 4.6 TRILLION, despite George HW giving us the highest tax increase in history to stop the crash. So much for those tax breaks bringing in more money, OR “thrifty” Republicans. While the debt still increased 24% under eight years of Clinton, despite Republicans running the Newt revolution to the hilt, then having “W” and Cheney more than double the debt again, we really CAN’T afford to go back that miserable Reaganomics route again.

“JFK, A Democrat cut Taxes for the Super Rich”

Yes, to 77%. Imagine Obama setting them to 39 - that’ almost half what JFK made them! Gosh, isn’t Obama just a swell guy?

Sooky Rottweiler says; When my human ties me to one of those, I pee on it when it expires.

Bruce, garnishment of wages within the Civil Service (Executive branch) of federal government is extremely easy to do, and with military. Now if those “employees” are under the legislative branch, not so easy. Even the new effort to lower Senate and House salaries, and force furloughs on government employees in Executive and JUDICIAL branches, EXCLUDES “employees” in the Legislative branch. Those congressional aids are the ones getting special treatment and gee, they happen to be “Schedule C” political appointees- who show up as excluded in all branches! Wow, who would have guessed???

Dems, including in the federal government, DO pay their taxes, if these numbers are “real” it might be interesting to track down more thoroughly exactly WHO isn’t paying.

Cantor is a bit of a dip, but when it comes to cutting costs of government, I’m for it, but - the real “enemies” are rarely, if ever targeted by any members of Congress.

Why are taxes not deducted at source for those on salaries?

The money I would have spent in the economy will now be much more efficiently and wisely spent on “stimulus.” Not! What a country.

Another thread “blamed” dems, was pointing out dodging isn’t restricted.

Haven’t any of you ever heard of the “withholding” tax? If employees are dodging “income tax”, it ain’t based on their salaried earnings. And back to the ‘toon, not many Civil Service folks earning over $250K- so hardly among the super rich.

Max General Schedule salary GS 15 step 10 is $266, 604. Average in service is still about GS 9 step 5 or $46 k per year.

Even taking it up to GS 12 level- $67 K, and in most branches of Federal employment that would be the top level most people will reach at the end of their careers.

Now with political appointees on Schedule C, it does go up.

The parking meter to the left of this one reads “Tax dollars stimulus for public unions and the UAW—please insert any Democrat!”

Missing from the debate is the fact that, just like government tax revenue increased when the cuts were first passed, revenue will decrease (and the deficit therefore increase) when they expire.

Unfortunately not missing from the debate is the oft-repeated figure of $700B as the cost for continuing the portion of the tax cuts that would go to the rich. Since for the first 10 years the rich got maybe $80B of the $1T+ total of the tax cuts, president Obama is evidently projecting some serious good times to come, as the rich would have to earn nearly an order of magnitude more between 2011 and 2020 than they earned between 2001 and 2010 in order for the impact of their portion of the tax cut to increase so dramatically…