Where?

Post #345,280 by Another Scott 7/28/11 9:50:25 AM Reply	Where?
Post #345,287 by S1mon_Jester 7/28/11 11:01:49 AM Reply	I think he's looking here Meet the Joneses State income taxes, taken alone, are just $10,557. But factor in the gas tax ($2,679), property tax ($15,222), phone service taxes and surcharges ($350) and sales tax ($2,258), and the picture looks far different. Their total tax bill, including the AMT and payroll taxes: $78,276. Not quite $80K, but close. Of course, we're ignoring drook's point entirely. We're talking a couple that is making $250k a year. They've maximized their 401K and are putting 8K a year aside for their kids. And they might be 4k in the hole. There are a LOT of people who can't maximize their 401K...much less put 8K a year aside...and they're a lot more than 4k in the hole. So we make it easier for guys making 250K by lowering their taxes and make it harder on the people who can't put 8K a year aside for their kids colleges? And, lets be fair, the 250K folks GOT where they were by government assistance - they got those guarenteed college loans: Mr. Jones racked up $40,208 in student loan debt in undergraduate and graduate school, and Mrs. Jones borrowed $22,650 to get her undergraduate degree (both amounts are equal to the national averages for their levels of education).
Post #345,289 by malraux 7/28/11 11:47:57 AM Reply	Re: I think he's looking here Property tax is $15,000? That's 7 times what I pay for my 4 bedroom house. Just federal income tax for them is ~$50K. That's 20%. Not exactly a high tax rate, and it's approximately the same as a lot of the flat tax proposal rates. In Glendale, the Joneses can live reasonably well Â but not extravagantly Â in a three- or four-bedroom home valued around $750,000. The excuse given for this is that they can't be expected to move to a lower cost area mid-career. True, but you don't have to live in Naperville, either, to work in the Chicago area. What's being glossed over in this story is that these people are making lifestyle choices that are not available to people with lower income. $5K for a housekeeper? Seriously? Buy a Roomba and put up with some dust and clutter like we do. And like Simon Says, putting away $41K/year for retirement and college (tax free, incidentally) is a hell of a lot more than the vast majority of people can manage. The marginal value of extra income for these people is significantly lower than for the people making less than the Joneses are putting into their retirement fund. Personally, however, I'm more interested in people like hedge fund managers getting away with capital gains only on millions of dollars of income a year. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #345,290 by jake123 7/28/11 12:04:21 PM Reply	The whining that the rich have been doing for a few years has really been a sight to behold.
Post #345,292 by drook 7/28/11 1:15:11 PM Reply	Dammit, we lost If you can get them to ask the wrong question, it doesn't much matter what the answer is. That whole article was flagrantly, obviously wrong. But the issue isn't whether $250k counts as rich. The issue is the multi-millions-per-year folks not paying their fair share. Just as people making $250k aren't living in the same world as people making $40k, people making $100m aren't living in the same world as those making $250k. But yes, $250k is still damn well off. -- Drew
Post #345,293 by beepster 7/28/11 2:04:18 PM Reply	well.. your quote was something along the lines of "fuck'em." And I paid 12k in prop taxes in southern NJ for the house you visited. I drove 2 hours to work because I couldn't afford to live in northern new jersey...where home prices were 5x and prop taxes were 2x minimum. paid higher than average sales taxes. Paid about 25% of car insurance to the state fund (that was 3.5k/yr bill). Additive, even with a net effective fed tax rate of only 10-15% depending on the year, when I tallied my total tax burden in NJ it was around 50%. And I wasn't, and still am not, making 225k/year...nor will I likely ever make that amount. However, moving to FL has changed my tax and c.o.l. substantially. Want to talk about $1M and up as rich/jet set..ok...but given the cost of living in the areas where these 100-200k jobs are, for the most part...these folks are NOT rich. They're not poor, not uncomfortable, but they are not rich. Raising taxes on "rich people" would get much harder to object to, even by tea partiers, if you up that total...and with that you could up the marginal to make up that difference. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,296 by drook 7/28/11 3:25:06 PM Reply	How many people making $250k have their own jets? Tea Partiers had no problem objecting to that. They've been, if nothing else, refreshingly up-front about the fact that they will oppose any tax, of any amount, on anything and anybody. -- Drew
Post #345,297 by beepster 7/28/11 4:20:46 PM Reply	Re: How many people making $250k have their own jets? duh. T(axed) E(nough) A(lready)...that's their entire point for being. Good thing there's a majority of people that aren't members, isn't it? And Obama equally as guilty for talking about his tax plan as if those that own their own jets would be the only ones to pay in recent and past speeches. And your dismissing of the point I made entirely is indeed telling...you act as if those 200kers are living high off the hog, not paying their fair share...and they are paying 80k (35%) in cumulative taxes. They are NOT the people that are being used to portray the "evil rich" in these speeches...they are mostly better than average educated folks that worked their ass off to get a bit ahead of the pack...and the government is spinning everyone into a frenzy to pull them back into the pack with everyone else. Sorry, that's not what this country is supposed to be about. As I said, if you talk about the fund manager making 500 million...that's another story...one that is MUCH easier to sell...and one that will CLEARLY alienate the majority from the tea partiers. But that's where the plan departs from the rhetoric, now isn't it? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,300 by drook 7/28/11 4:36:30 PM Reply	The problem with that argument It sounds entirely reasonable. "Okay, maybe the rich should be paying a bit more. But people making $250k aren't rich, they're people who busted their asses to get where they are." Yup, that may be true. But if anyone concedes that point and says, "Sure, let's start at a million," then you know as well as I do the TP-ers will say that those people are hard working small business owners. And if you move it to 10 million then those people will be "job creators". TP-ers don't want to compromise. Take one step in their direction and they back up two more steps. At this point the president should just shoot for rolling back the Bush tax cuts entirely. If that means people making $200k and above take a hit, so be it. -- Drew
Post #345,332 by beepster 7/29/11 9:10:43 AM Reply	the tpers can't drive the bus there aren't enough of them. And you take EVERYONE ELSE, general republicans included, and marginalize them. Rolling back the bush tax cuts entirely hits EVERYBODY, not just those making over 200k. Might not be a horrible idea...but try and get that through ;-) Hell, with the dems offering plans that cut next to nothing and voting in block against the repo plan which isn't much better...maybe by this time next week we'll be bankrupt and sell ourselves to the Chinese for pennies on the dollar. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,353 by drook 7/29/11 1:40:58 PM Reply	That explains why Boehner got the bill passed last night -- Drew
Post #345,355 by beepster 7/29/11 1:54:34 PM Reply	getting zero dems helps that cause along quite well. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,358 by Another Scott 7/29/11 2:01:26 PM Reply	Having the majority is rough, isn't it?
Post #345,361 by beepster 7/29/11 3:22:59 PM Reply	not particularly. but I notice no uproar any longer about block no voting by a single party, do I? Bueller? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,362 by drook 7/29/11 3:31:49 PM Reply	[sigh] There is a difference When the majority says openly that their #1 priority is making Obama a one-term president, and their action confirm they don't give a shit what they blow up or who gets hurt along the way, then yeah, I have no problem with opposing that. -- Drew
Post #345,366 by beepster 7/29/11 4:31:47 PM Reply	no there is not except in your head. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,367 by Another Scott 7/29/11 4:37:10 PM Reply	You're actually a 'bot, aren't you. <sigh>
Post #345,369 by beepster 7/29/11 4:47:26 PM Reply	well... ...maybe on this one instance of a vote I'll forgive. problem is, though, it's been happening pretty much since the change. Silence. This time, they're fighting the good fight for their beliefs. Also convenient that y'all like this side better than the others. As church lady says...isn't that >convenient< Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,394 by S1mon_Jester 7/30/11 1:38:34 AM Reply	So you're saying that the Democrats are using the same tactics as Republicans?
Post #345,409 by lincoln 7/30/11 12:42:02 PM Reply	Of course he is that way he can easily rationalize the false equality of responsibility for the debt crisis. RepubliCANTS are totally responsible for this false crisis that they have manufactured to give them the opportunity to shove their ideology down the throats of Americans, who would never let such crap occur if they tried this under a different political scenario. "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #345,565 by Another Scott 8/2/11 8:10:53 AM Reply	About T.E.A. http://www.nytimes.c...s/02teaparty.html When Tea Party supporters were asked if the debt-ceiling agreement should include only tax increases, only spending cuts, or a combination of both, the majority Â 53 percent Â said that it should include a combination. Forty-five percent preferred only spending cuts. More than half of the teabaggers wanted taxes increased as part of the plan. And 100 - 53 - 45 = 2% wanted only tax increases. Hmmm. ;-) Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!