We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire

Hipsterlosers wrote:

Well it makes since that you think a tax hike to 36% is no big deal, considering you are miscalculating the amount of extra tax by 10 times! Your estimate of $800 is incorrect, by the way. It would be an extra $8,000 (or $7,500 to be exact). The gross tax liability for someone making $250,000 at 36% rate is $90,000 per year; at 33% it is $82,500 per year. .

The tax increase of 3% is only on the amount over $250k ( or whatever figure the other poster used). The other poster was right and you're wrong. Try to keep up.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Higher taxes on the wealthy will affect everyone adversely. All other factors being equal, there will be less capital formation, less business investment and growth, lower profits (affects middle-class shareholders), higher natural interest rates, fewer jobs, fewer products and services and less spending. These are inevitable consequences of taxation.

How does this work? Almost all tax revenue is spent domestically. Why doesn't government-funded economic activity count?

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Higher taxes on the wealthy will affect everyone adversely. All other factors being equal, there will be less capital formation, less business investment and growth, lower profits (affects middle-class shareholders), higher natural interest rates, fewer jobs, fewer products and services and less spending. These are inevitable consequences of taxation.

That's not what happened when Reagan raised tax rates.

These are inevitable consequences of taxation.

I'm sorry, but that's just crap. There are many reasonable arguments for lower personal taxation, but that list doesn't contain any of them.

Proof: personal tax rates have never been lower in the modern era, and economic growth is scraping along the bottom of any definition of the word "growth".

The gap between revenue and expenditure is so huge. Taxing the wealthy more is like throwing a shovel of dirt into the Grand Canyon, good luck filling the gap. We must vastly expand the economy and significantly reduce the spending (not a 10 yr projection of potential cuts, but real/current cuts) then the gap will come back together. If anyone can explain how we can expand the economy by raising taxes I'm willing to listen.

That doesn't mean you should reject tax hikes. There is no one panacea for this mess. Every little bit helps, so increasing taxes should be included. We need spending reductions and revenue increases to get us out of this.

If anyone can explain how we can expand the economy by raising taxes I'm willing to listen.

Well (and this is just one suggestion) higher taxes would mean more money available for infrastructure projects (with less need for borrowing), more infrastructure projects means more employment, more employment means that more people have money to buy things, and more people buying things expands the economy.

That was called the stimulus and it didn't work. Unemployment is still high and now we have to pay all that money back.

Government doesn't create jobs!

GenericID wrote:

If anyone can explain how we can expand the economy by raising taxes I'm willing to listen.

Well (and this is just one suggestion) higher taxes would mean more money available for infrastructure projects (with less need for borrowing), more infrastructure projects means more employment, more employment means that more people have money to buy things, and more people buying things expands the economy.

Not sure I agree with your logic. Note this link:

where average salary is $45,000. Another link has it at $39,000. In most parts of the country that is not a lot of money to spend in the economy.

I agree that taxation is at it's low point and have no problem with increasing levels that are reasonable in historical gradation. To me the issue is one of simply modifying who the "rich" are. That is, if you are an employer who has a staff of 10 or more employees working for him or her, that should qualify you for one level of taxation. If you gain your income via investments or simple income from work, that should be another level of taxation (higher in my opinion). Plus many of the loopholes that presently exist for huge corporations and investors (hedge fund mainly) need to be corrected. This is not high tech engineering, it is simple accounting. With so many pages of tax code already existing, it shouldn't be such a big deal to fine tune a few areas of the tax code.

However, the bottom line is that even if the taxes for the wealthy are increased as proposed, this will not jet start the economy. Unfortunately, until the in fighting between the two parties ends and some stability takes place as to economic policy in the US, we will continue to struggle. Companies do not function well on short term policy, they work much more efficiently on 5 year plans. So the government needs to step up, make some agreements so that everyone can move on and get back to building the economy.

would you prefer we tax people with 3 kids in college and a grandmother to care for who make $50k salary instead?

Only the amount of income over $250,000 wil be taxed at the higher rate. So if you make $250,050, $50 of that income will be taxed at the higher rate.I think you'll be fine.

don't tax the rich wrote:

Does anyone else ever get tired of hearing Obama talk about taxing the rich? He mentions millionaires/billionaires in the same breath as those making $250,000/year........blah....blah......

..........a billionaire. F*** off Barack Obama.

Why is it that people always talk about infrastructure jobs.....hardly any of us work in construction? Why do these jobs only go to union guys. Oh....wait....never mind.

My family income is roughly what yours is. If you can't afford a slight tax increase, you are not managing your budget well. We actually make ~$200k and I blow money out my a-hole and still have money left over. So, you're doing something wrong on the spending side. 10 years ago, I made $50k, and I would have been hit hard by a tax increase. Today, $1000 doesn't really mean anything to me. Does that mean the government should be entitled to my money? No. But I can't complain about a deficit and complain about the government wanting to raise tax revenues in the same breath.

If you really care about reducing the deficit, which almost every American claims they do, then you shouldn't flinch when the government says they want to raise tax rates.

In most parts of the country that is not a lot of money to spend in the economy.

It's more than if they were unemployed.

Why is it that people always talk about infrastructure jobs.....hardly any of us work in construction?

Infrastructure isn't only construction (why is it that people like you, who have little knowledge and even less imagination, seem to feel obligated to offer an opinion on subjects that are clearly beyond their mental capacities?).

OP, can you post your yearly income and expenses? This will help us analyze your budget to see where you're wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars. You base success on luxury cars and expensive vacations. Nobody can really afford those anyway. Housing situation? Are you paying full tuition on your kids' education? Lots of questions to be answered before anyone feels sorry for you. You should be able to reel in your expenses back to less than 50k a year.

If you have 3 kids, college expenses, support your mother in law and are saving for retirement, you have plenty of exemptions, deductions and deferments to bring your taxable income way below 250.

Your taxes are not going up.

UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:

My family income is roughly what yours is. If you can't afford a slight tax increase, you are not managing your budget well. We actually make ~$200k and I blow money out my a-hole and still have money left over. So, you're doing something wrong on the spending side. 10 years ago, I made $50k, and I would have been hit hard by a tax increase. Today, $1000 doesn't really mean anything to me. Does that mean the government should be entitled to my money? No. But I can't complain about a deficit and complain about the government wanting to raise tax revenues in the same breath.

If you really care about reducing the deficit, which almost every American claims they do, then you shouldn't flinch when the government says they want to raise tax rates.

If you blow money out your a-hole.....could I be your toilet?

The OP is rich....very, or quite, rich. It is what he does with that $250,000 that makes him poor.

Kudos for helping ma-in-law, but stop spoiling those damn kids of yours.

You're welcome.

Wow you guys are really confirming my views on the middle lower class. Most of you (whether you'll admit it or not) are a bunch of whiny bitches who are jealous of those you make more than you. You think they are spoiled and should have to shoulder the burden of the country's enormous debt and when you see them driving a Lexus, you think they aren't paying enough taxes.

How about this. Did you ever consider that the wealthy are much smarter and/or hard working than you so maybe they deserve a nicer life style? The $250,000 - $400,000 tax bracket are the most taken advantage of people in the country. Many of them are like the op with huge tuition bills and zero help.

Accept your lifestyle and don't be jealous of those with better jobs.