Cliffmas........... (Page 2)

mr2tony - 2012-12-04 2:35 PM BFD, but then who's going to create all these jobs the wealthy have been creating with the money they've received from the Bush Tax Cuts? All that amazing job creation the Republicans like to talk about would go away.

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 1:32 PM

Let's talk a little about fair.  Now if you set aside, "I earned it, it's mine." and "redistribution of wealth." and just accept the fact that one role of "government" is to redistribute monies from those who earn a lot to those have less and need some form of help.  That a wealthy person's "fair share" is percentage higher than a poorer person's "fair share"...

Taxes are never simple and numbers can be made to sway arguments in many decisions.  But in very simplistic terms, if you compare these four people:  'Poor", "Middle", "Upper", "Wealthy", and "Rich".  These number are of course very general and rough estimates:

Poor earns      $35K   a year, about $1,800 a month net on a 0% tax bracket.
Middle earns   $50K   a year, about $2,500 a month net on a 0% tax bracket.
Upper earns    $100K a year, about $5,100 a month net on a 25% tax bracket.
Wealthy earns $250K a year, about $12,750 a month net on a 33% tax bracket.
Rich earns       $500K a year, about $25,500 a month net on a 35% tax bracket.

If we talk about "my 2K" or about $2,000 a year in tax increases, roughly 2% tax rate increase.

Poor pays       $0.
Middle pays    $0.
Upper pays     $160 more per month off of $5,100 and takes a small hit.
Wealthy pays  $420 more per month off of $12,750 and takes a hardly noticable hit.
Rich pays        $830 more per month off of $25,500 and would hardly feel it at all.

Oh and...  Mr./Mrs. Ultra-Rich who earns dividends and interest on $200 million, pulls in $4 million a year from that and only pays 15% taxes... Now that's just robbery!

I WISH I were in the top 2% and could afford to pay an extra $250-$1,000 more per month in taxes!

And yes, if that were me, I would want and demand my government to be efficient with my money and demand that they reduce spending as well.  If my government wants me to pay more to pay down the deficit to benefit my children's future, than yes, I would demand that it actually pay down the deficit and not be used to prop up current spending levels.  That side of the argument was and remains valid IMHO.

 

 

Meulen - 2012-12-04 3:08 PM

Fixed your numbers for you to be more realistic after deductions.   Oh and 15% on dividend is robbery!  Why are we taxing peoples money that they reinvest into the country and the economy?  I don't understand!

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 3:21 PM

You ASSUME that they reinvest in this country and economy.  What?  No one has invested in China at all or other emerging and developing countries that could earn them a much higher rate of return?  You assume that if taxes go up, they suddenly will stop reinvesting?!  And do what, put their money into gold or under their mattress because they don't want to pay higher taxes?

God I hate this trickle-down economics argument.  It's NEVER WORKED!  Investment doesn't relate to tax rates.  To quote Warren Buffet, "If I told you about this amazing investment opportuinity that would earn a high rate of return and looks sound, are you going to hesitate because you want to know how it will affect the amount of taxes that you pay?"  And...  "Some of the best years of my investing life have come during times of much higher tax rates.  I've never based a business decision based on taxes."

 

 

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 2:21 PM

You ASSUME that they reinvest in this country and economy.  What?  No one has invested in China at all or other emerging and developing countries that could earn them a much higher rate of return?  You assume that if taxes go up, they suddenly will stop reinvesting?!  And do what, put their money into gold or under their mattress because they don't want to pay higher taxes?

God I hate this trickle-down economics argument.  It's NEVER WORKED!  Investment doesn't relate to tax rates.  To quote Warren Buffet, "If I told you about this amazing investment opportuinity that would earn a high rate of return and looks sound, are you going to hesitate because you want to know how it will affect the amount of taxes that you pay?"  And...  "Some of the best years of my investing life have come during times of much higher tax rates.  I've never based a business decision based on taxes."

 

 

Meulen - 2012-12-04 1:32 PM

 

Trickle down econ is the ONLY thing that's ever worked.  Warren Buffet is old and Senile! LOL  The guy has lost it!.  The math is simple, if you have less money to reinvest because our "wonderfully efficient" government has taken more from you.  Well.......there's less to re-invest....NO?  I remember a time when Warren buffet was not willing to pay more taxes.  His argument used to be he'd much rather distribute the money how he sees fit to charity.  It would do much greater good than having it disappear in the government beuracracy.  That's the real issue here.  We are talking peanuts on the revenue side.  Honestly, I don't know why anyone cares about it.  The clear issue is spending, not revenue.  This whole tax the Rich B.S., oh....this trickle down thing never worked.....we tried that....it's all b.s. that people are falling for because they bought into this whole class warfare crap.  Bah!!!!  THERE'S A SPENDING PROBLEM!!!

Meulen - 2012-12-04 3:32 PM

 

Trickle down econ is the ONLY thing that's ever worked.  Warren Buffet is old and Senile! LOL  The guy has lost it!.  The math is simple, if you have less money to reinvest because our "wonderfully efficient" government has taken more from you.  Well.......there's less to re-invest....NO?  I remember a time when Warren buffet was not willing to pay more taxes.  His argument used to be he'd much rather distribute the money how he sees fit to charity.  It would do much greater good than having it disappear in the government beuracracy.  That's the real issue here.  We are talking peanuts on the revenue side.  Honestly, I don't know why anyone cares about it.  The clear issue is spending, not revenue.  This whole tax the Rich B.S., oh....this trickle down thing never worked.....we tried that....it's all b.s. that people are falling for because they bought into this whole class warfare crap.  Bah!!!!  THERE'S A SPENDING PROBLEM!!!

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 1:32 PM

Let's talk a little about fair.  Now if you set aside, "I earned it, it's mine." and "redistribution of wealth." and just accept the fact that one role of "government" is to redistribute monies from those who earn a lot to those have less and need some form of help.  That a wealthy person's "fair share" is percentage higher than a poorer person's "fair share"...

Taxes are never simple and numbers can be made to sway arguments in many decisions.  But in very simplistic terms, if you compare these four people:  'Poor", "Middle", "Upper", "Wealthy", and "Rich".  These number are of course very general and rough estimates:

Poor earns      $35K   a year, about $1,800 a month net on a 15% tax bracket.
Middle earns   $50K   a year, about $2,500 a month net on a 15% tax bracket.
Upper earns    $100K a year, about $5,100 a month net on a 25% tax bracket.
Wealthy earns $250K a year, about $12,750 a month net on a 33% tax bracket.
Rich earns       $500K a year, about $25,500 a month net on a 35% tax bracket.

If we talk about "my 2K" or about $2,000 a year in tax increases, roughly 2% tax rate increase.

Poor pays       $60   more per month off of $1,800 and takes a HUGE hit.
Middle pays    $85   more per month off of $2,550 and takes a BIG hit.
Upper pays     $160 more per month off of $5,100 and takes a small hit.
Wealthy pays  $420 more per month off of $12,750 and takes a hardly noticable hit.
Rich pays        $830 more per month off of $25,500 and would hardly feel it at all.

The increase may be the same across the board.  But since the cost of living and inflation have raised prices while wages have remain stagnant, the poorer you are, the more every dollar counts.  A 2% hike to someone earning $35,000 per year means food.  A 2% hike to Mr./Mrs. Wealthy and Rich doesn't mean as much.  When you earn more to where taxes are a financial number and don't equate to lifestyle, but "extras" - that's what we're talking about.

What is so wrong with?

Poor pays        no    more per month off of $1,800.
Middle pays     no    more per month off of $2,550.
Upper pays      no    more per month off of $5,100.
Wealthy pays  $420 more per month off of $12,750 and takes a hardly noticable hit.
Rich pays        $830 more per month off of $25,500 and would hardly feel it at all.

Oh and...  Mr./Mrs. Ultra-Rich who earns dividends and interest on $200 million, pulls in $4 million a year from that and only pays 15% taxes... Now that's just robbery!

I WISH I were in the top 2% and could afford to pay an extra $250-$1,000 more per month in taxes!

And yes, if that were me, I would want and demand my government to be efficient with my money and demand that they reduce spending as well.  If my government wants me to pay more to pay down the deficit to benefit my children's future, than yes, I would demand that it actually pay down the deficit and not be used to prop up current spending levels.  That side of the argument was and remains valid IMHO.

 

Meulen - 2012-12-04 2:32 PM

 

Trickle down econ is the ONLY thing that's ever worked.  Warren Buffet is old and Senile! LOL  The guy has lost it!.  The math is simple, if you have less money to reinvest because our "wonderfully efficient" government has taken more from you.  Well.......there's less to re-invest....NO?  I remember a time when Warren buffet was not willing to pay more taxes.  His argument used to be he'd much rather distribute the money how he sees fit to charity.  It would do much greater good than having it disappear in the government beuracracy.  That's the real issue here.  We are talking peanuts on the revenue side.  Honestly, I don't know why anyone cares about it.  The clear issue is spending, not revenue.  This whole tax the Rich B.S., oh....this trickle down thing never worked.....we tried that....it's all b.s. that people are falling for because they bought into this whole class warfare crap.  Bah!!!!  THERE'S A SPENDING PROBLEM!!!

JoshR - 2012-12-04 2:36 PM

 

It's both spending and revenue. If you cut spending across the board by 33%, we still wouldn't have a balanced budget.

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 2:43 PM

To what end I have to ask?  How low spending and how low taxes are we talking about?  What departments would you eliminate?  What entitlements are gone?  What goes to the free market and what stays with the government?  What is the actual role of Federal government?  What would make you happy?

 

tuwood - 2012-12-04 2:51 PM

But just over a decade ago our spending was less than our revenue.  Revenue's didn't go down, spending went up.  We have a spending problem that got us into this mess.

Now there most certainly is an argument that increasing revenue is needed to get us out of this mess, but we absolutely need to cap our spending back to a realistic level of GDP (30% or whatever) and live within our means.

mr2tony - 2012-12-04 12:55 PM Yes, increased defense spending is OK? Again, people only want to spend on items they deem `necessary' and everybody else needs to stop the madness!

tuwood - 2012-12-04 2:45 PM

Is the bolded part in the constitution somewhere?  I must have missed that part.

Because of the way my business is structured I fall into your "wealthy" category and I can tell you without a doubt an extra $420/mo. would hurt us immensely.  In fact it would directly come out of money we give to local charities and quite likely we wouldn't take a vacation and I most certainly would cut a few Tri races off my schedule.  I'm on every bit as much of a budget as I was when I was making $35k/year and taking $420/mo. today would hurt every bit as much as taking $60/mo. would have hurt back then.

Could I afford it in the sense of would I be out on the street if my taxes went up?  Yes I could afford it, but it would be extremely painful.

I would venture to guess that 85%+ of the people who live in my fairly affluent neighborhood are paycheck to paycheck.  If you cut their pay by hundreds of dollars a month it will be ugly.

I've also done the math on the actual Cliff.  If it takes effect I personally will have to pay close to $10,000 more in additional taxes which is over $800/mo.  Granted the fiscal cliff isn't anyone's proposal per se' but it would not be pretty.

I just can't wrap my head around the liberal mindset when it comes to hammering the supposed rich.  I paid close to $30,000 in just federal taxes last year (personally), but it's not enough.  I am sick and tired of people telling me I need to pay my "fair share" when half the population paid $0.

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 8:55 AM

The same can be said for the "other side".  Congressman Rand Paul has said going over the cliff wouldn't be such a bad thing because we need the spending cuts and if it means do it the hard sequestration way, that's better than not making the cuts at all.

Let's get to the "meat of the matter":  Republicans have to give on raising rates for the top 2%.  Extend the Bush era tax cuts for all but the top 2%.  Eliminating loopholes and capping deductions with no details is just kicking the can.  Polls show most Americans are onboard with this and many in that 2% have said they're willing to pay more.  I don't know who the Republicans are pandering to?

Democrats have to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the table.  The programs need to be preserved, but even in their current state, not dealing with their swelling costs is their kicking the can.  You HAVE to deal with it eventually and get those costs down - might as well put it on the table now.

I think defense spending cuts is a foregone conclusion.  Just better to do it in a managed, controlled way to which you can identify exactly where the cuts will be made is so much better than an ugly half-billion across-the-board slash.

No one's going over a "cliff".  One of three things is most likely to happen:

1. Some agreement is made at the last minute.
2. They find some way to avoid it, stall and kick the can down the road yet again.
3. They re-label it to something "softer" and soften the sequestration blow by implementing it over a longer stretch of time.  Stalling... but with marketing.

Oh and...  Isn't "Merry Cliffmas" offensive to some?  Shouldn't we be saying "Happy Cliffmadays" instead?  After all, there is a war on Cliffmas.

 

Meulen - 2012-12-04 3:00 PM

 

this to me is key, most of the people complaining don't pay anything!

mr2tony - 2012-12-04 2:55 PM Yes, increased defense spending is OK? Again, people only want to spend on items they deem `necessary' and everybody else needs to stop the madness!

mr2tony - 2012-12-04 3:30 PM I dont hear you complaining about he tax loopholes you're taking advantage of to lower your tax liability.

tuwood - 2012-12-04 3:43 PM

So I pay a very high tax (after all deductions) and I'm complaining that 50% of the population pays $0 in taxes but I should be complaining about loopholes I'm taking advantage of to lower my tax liability?  That doesn't even make sense.

What loopholes am I taking advantage of?  The only deductions I take are for my kids, and my mortgage interest, are those loopholes?

tuwood - 2012-12-04 3:45 PM

"... I would venture to guess that 85%+ of the people who live in my fairly affluent neighborhood are paycheck to paycheck.  If you cut their pay by hundreds of dollars a month it will be ugly."

mr2tony - 2012-12-04 3:47 PM So how can you complain about the people paying zero percent tax when all they're doing it following the tax code just like you are?

tuwood - 2012-12-04 2:45 PM

Is the bolded part in the constitution somewhere?  I must have missed that part.

Because of the way my business is structured I fall into your "wealthy" category and I can tell you without a doubt an extra $420/mo. would hurt us immensely.  In fact it would directly come out of money we give to local charities and quite likely we wouldn't take a vacation and I most certainly would cut a few Tri races off my schedule.  I'm on every bit as much of a budget as I was when I was making $35k/year and taking $420/mo. today would hurt every bit as much as taking $60/mo. would have hurt back then.

Could I afford it in the sense of would I be out on the street if my taxes went up?  Yes I could afford it, but it would be extremely painful.

I would venture to guess that 85%+ of the people who live in my fairly affluent neighborhood are paycheck to paycheck.  If you cut their pay by hundreds of dollars a month it will be ugly.

I've also done the math on the actual Cliff.  If it takes effect I personally will have to pay close to $10,000 more in additional taxes which is over $800/mo.  Granted the fiscal cliff isn't anyone's proposal per se' but it would not be pretty.

I just can't wrap my head around the liberal mindset when it comes to hammering the supposed rich.  I paid close to $30,000 in just federal taxes last year (personally), but it's not enough.  I am sick and tired of people telling me I need to pay my "fair share" when half the population paid $0.

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 3:48 PM

Tony.  Dude.  All I'll say is that anyone bringing down $250K+ a year and having to live paycheck to paycheck on a monthly basis needs to take a serious lesson from "great generation" Grandpa and Grandma on how to live within their means!  That's some SERIOUS nasty greed and living high on the hog!  I sure hope you don't fall into that crowd.

I've been downsized in corporate failuers and reductions enough to know what it's like to go several months with no job.  I don't earn even half of you, but we live life about 50% under that.  Got money going for retirement, kids' college, Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, weddings, and minimum 6-month safety net in case the hammer drops again.  And on top of that, we still donate some money, but mostly time and energy) to needy charities.  I come from school teacher stock, so there ain't no inheritence coming to our rescue.

"Bringing down $250K+ a year and having to live paycheck to paycheck."  Sorry, but I'm having a really hard time wrapping my head around that one.  I guess we poor, just don't understand.

 

mr2tony - 2012-12-04 4:06 PM OK what am I missing? You make more than $250,000 a year and another $420 a month would hurt you immensely? Let's say you make $250,000 a year. That means you make $20,833.33 a month. Minus taxes. Say you pay 30 percent of your pay to taxes, which I highly doubt you do, that's still $14,583.10 a month. Minus $420. You seriously can't live on $14,163.10 a month? Living on more than $14,000 a MONTH is difficult? Dude. You're doing something wrong. Also, if the people in your affluent neighborhood can't afford to live in their big giant beautiful houses, perhaps they shouldn't be living in their big giant beautiful houses. Don't ask me to have sympathy for wealthy people because they can't afford to live in their mansions.