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

Is that what happened in the 1990s? Did employers take fewer risks because of Clinton's tax hike?

Could you explain this to me? Let's say, for example, you're making $250,000 per year like the original poster. And let's say, Obama gets his way, and income above $250,000 is taxed at 39.6%, as it was in the 1990s. And then you're offered a new job that pays $500,000 per year. What do you do?

What poor choices did they make and what would you advise Americans to do? Should every American go to a top 25 university and get an MBA or a JD? No one should drive a cab? No one should work retail?

How common is this? How much money is being wasted on people taking advantage of unemployment insurance versus the amount that's wasted on unnecessary DoD spending?

Hasn't the CBO said as much?

[quote[Reuters wrote:

WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013 if Congress extends expiring tax rates on lower income levels, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday.

In a report expected to fuel Democrats' post-election demands for higher taxes on the rich, the CBO said extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts, along with changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax, would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth by 1.5 percentage points, compared to letting these rates snap back to prior levels.

If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said growth would rise by 1.25 percent -- just a quarter point less than extending all of the cuts.[/quote]

Where are these places?

You're saying that the 61,814,180 Americans that voted for Obama last week did so because they want freebies? I know people with household incomes over $1 million per year that wrote checks to Obama's campaign. What freebies are they getting?

I think worse. The vast majority of economists I've read have said that spending cuts alone will not fix the problem. And Romney was going to jack up the Pentagon's budget for no reason other than to appeal to red meat concerns.

married up wrote:

Also, a company that continually focuses more on pleasing shareholders instead of enhancing its product or maintaining quality will eventually suffer. Consumers will flock to another company that meets their needs more effectively. That pattern is unsustainable in the long-term.

That sounds right. But it seems to be a natural course of action to dial into short term concerns.

Jeff:I 100% agree! almost everybody looks at what they make as reasonable and that the people that make more than them are " rich" and therefore should pay more. It is easy to point at the income levels above you and demand that they pay more while you don't.To solve this, how about we pay the same progressive scale for all types of income: salary, dividend, carried interest, capital gains, loan shark profits etc. That way when Messieurs Brinn, Page, Schmidt, Zuckerburg etc cash out 100 million plus a year, they get the same tax brackets as the the high income salary people ( currently 35%)ps. I thought Russell Crowe did a great job acting as you.signed, second fastest 1500m runner in Austin ( thankfully Todd Harbor lives in Waco)

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Doug;

Don't you think the people making $1 million would be saying that Obama should just raise taxes on the people making over $5million, "the real rich"?

I went from living off 5,000 a year in college (money from summer and part time job) to making 42,000. My wife makes the same. We HAVEN'T CHANGED our college lifestyle of cheap living (but have more expenses now of course) but we are still making around 30,000 profit a year between us. We go on "vacation" skiing, backpacking, hunting, rock climbing, etc... all the time too. Obviously, you are not living as cheap as us but have you ever realized that maybe you aren't mad at Obama but are actually mad at your life choices where you made decisions that have permanently tied you down financially and now you aren't happy because your loss of money represents your loss of happiness?

Hey OP it is your choice to have kids, it is your choice, to pay for their college, it is your choice to not carpool or use bikes or public transit, and it is also your choice to live in this country where we believe that the government should provide some services (not everything I know, I am also an AP Gov teacher w/ a Masters and am up for a good civic duty debate any day). Most cities have parks and rec programs, public schools, sanitation, cemetery, etc... and our government of course provides services on a bigger scale. I KNOW you want these services (like protection from our military or health regulations in our food and water) so stop complaining about taxes (you wont even notice the increase, honestly, it will be like the 90's again) and start looking at your own decisions. You are probably going to lose $800-1,600 (or none at all if you are smart and tack advantage of tax breaks, you have already named three that you qualify for). Your city sales tax will probably effect you more. Maybe you should have a rant about your mayor and city council?

My point is, your rant does a better job of pointing out your own character, which seems to be unhappy with your work input and spending money output ratio, than it does developing a solid argument on taxes and Executive rule.

I think most people on this board are just trying to say something to that effect even if it is surface-level offensive.

Oh look at you. Mr Econ 101. Quite a few of the basic ideas of classic economics do not hold in any economy due to all the distorting effects of governments/politicians/democracy...

iYou idiot wrote:

Oh look at you. Mr Econ 101. Quite a few of the basic ideas of classic economics do not hold in any economy due to all the distorting effects of governments/politicians/democracy...

maybe that is a sign to the government to get out of the way of growth.

I am not who you adressed in this question, but am the OP.

I'll answer:

1) Primarily I think we spend WAYY too much on defense

2) The "war on drugs." Legalise them.

Thank you for responding - I agree in principle with your two ideas for cutting spending. However:

1) The defense budget is one that is spent almost entirely domestically (some in UK, and other countries but that is balanced by reciprocal orders from those countries), creating vast numbers of jobs, not only directly, but in the supply chain. If we cut that spending, how are we going to employ the people (not only the manual and factory workers who would find it hard to relocate to other jobs and areas when the factories close, but also the highly-skilled and -qualified scientists (computer and otherwise)) who would suddenly be unemployed? Would that not constitute a larger cost than the savings, both financially and in human terms?

2) I've long been an advocate of the legalization of all drugs, however, the cost savings of such an action are not readily apparent. If you legalize recreational drugs, then you need a framework of licensing for sale and resale, plus quality testing and importation/production rules (take cocaine as an example - the purity levels will have to be established and monitored) - this costs money (we do it already for alcohol, but the system of rules and regulations - as well as monitoring those rules and regulations - would need to be expanded hugely). Legalize drugs if you will, but there is more to it than saying: "here's a spliff, enjoy!" - and that "more" costs money. Ask any Dutchman.

As for the link you provide, there is no context provided for the information (they make up for that with a lot of bias!). Taking the top item - spending money on a reality show in India which promoted US cotton; perhaps you might want to look into the amount of cotton (both raw and as fabric) imported by India every year (this despite India being the world's second largest cotton producer) - if you don't think that money was well spent, then I can assure you that American cotton farmers do.

were you aware... wrote:

You seem like a person who is not aware that when the top MTRs were ~90%, there were so many exemptions and deductions that no one actually paid those rates.

This is what is know as anecdote. The FACT that the top marginal tax rates exceeded 70% in the past is a FACT - in order to counter that FACT you need to produce FACTS of your own - not anecdotes.

That is $246,000 less you have to invest into other stocks in the future. Hmmm....I bet you some company would benefit from that investment.

The big problem with your logic is that the $246k taken in additional tax doesn't just drop out of the financial system; it gets recycled into roads, bridges, ports, etc., it is used to pay teachers to produce the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs, to pay police and the courts so that your business can function, etc., etc.

All the stuff that you consider "wasted" money actually supports the businesses which made you $1 million on your stock portfolio. Ask yourself this, if cost of doing business quadrupled for the companies in your portfolio, how much would your portfolio make per annum?

If the government stopped enforcing contracts, stopped building roads, stopped promoting US products abroad, and stopped ensuring the quality of new high school graduates (just a very few of the things the government does), quadrupled would be a massive UNDERestimate of what it would cost a company to do business.

So much for your portfolio.

reading 101 wrote:

maybe that is a sign to the government to get out of the way of growth.

Only if you hold that the basic ideas of classic economics are a good thing.

Of course, classic economics is based on what is good for MONEY, not necessarily what is good for PEOPLE, while the principles of democratic government in a capitalist society are at least an attempt to do good things for people AND money.

But, hey, what the hell did nuance ever do for anyone?

GenericID wrote:

1) The defense budget is one that is spent almost entirely domestically (some in UK, and other countries but that is balanced by reciprocal orders from those countries), creating vast numbers of jobs, not only directly, but in the supply chain. If we cut that spending, how are we going to employ the people (not only the manual and factory workers who would find it hard to relocate to other jobs and areas when the factories close, but also the highly-skilled and -qualified scientists (computer and otherwise)) who would suddenly be unemployed? Would that not constitute a larger cost than the savings, both financially and in human terms?

This is not a good argument. The government could pay people to dig holes and fill them back up and it would "create jobs" but it wouldn't add any value to our country. Building a billion dollar plane and then leaving it in a hangar to rust isn't doing anything for our country. Sure, some military research leads to new technology and revenue, but nowhere near the level that NASA has been able to do on a fraction of the budget.

Building a billion dollar plane and then leaving it in a hangar to rust isn't doing anything for our country.

But building a billion dollar plane and selling it to our allies generates billionS of dollars.

You misunderstand my point anyway, I'm not claiming that the military budget is the best way of spending our tax money, just that if you are going to cut the military budget a few ideas on what you are replacing it with might help.

Take your NASA point - if you halved military spending, and sent the money to NASA, would that agency be able to replace the jobs lost by the military? Would they "add value" at the same level they are now, or even on the level that the military does currently?

i don't think anyone should be forced to stoop down to your own average, economic level.

i think it's better to have a possibility, a chance for anyone to get lucky and make millions, than to have no chance at all with everyone stuck in a neo-communism society.

i don't like how a teenage justin bieber is possibly making more money than all of us posters here combined, but i also wouldn't want to take his money away either. not everyone gets to live that dream, but as long as the opportunity is there for some of my fellow americans to achieve, then i'm for it.

i don't think higher taxes is the answer.

1) I am rich and selfish.

2) I am a fiscal conservative.

Look, my ideology lost - albeit by a small margin - so right now I have to think more about 1 than 2. A compromise on the fiscal cliff which includes higher taxes for me will be better than one that does not. If the compromise sufficiently appeases both sides, I will make up the tax increase in excess earnings easily. I will continue to try to convince people that my point of view is right, but in the meantime I am not going to sacrifice income for some kind of moral last stand. Basically it is in my own best interests for my taxes to increase. As incredibly backward as I think that is, there is not much I can do about it at present.

people saying, "historically low tax rate", in favor of higher rates are using an irrelevant point.

we're living in a different world, different communication and travel access, ecommerce, etc.

wars going on, plus as some posters have mentioned, different cost of living rates depending on geographic location.

people should not be penalized for getting lucky.

if 1 person out of 50 million wins the lottery, then he won. the other people played and had the chance.

if an artist makes millions by selling a cartoon book, then that's that. people appreciate his talent and want to be entertained. he shouldn't be forced by the masses to take a paycut. you may think it's dumb, but why impede this capitalistic process?

if some people get lucky, then fine. i'm all for opportunity, instead of living in a caste system like in india, where you're doomed to a lower standard of living.

i don't want communism either.

the chance to go above the norm shouldn't be tampered with.

20 Trillion wrote:

Every single person calling out the OP in this thread is telling him that he needs to SPEND LESS money. Not one single person has advocated that he go out and make more.

If so many people realize that SPENDING LESS is the solution for families with tight budgets, then why can we not agree that cutting the federal budget has to be the main way of solving the debt crisis?

Azaleas wrote:And no, to the other people, household finance is not analogous to national finance. If I cut my spending, for instance, I don't have to worry about creating a recession within my household.

wow, cutting billions of dollars toward multiple wars will suddenly stop americans from consuming coca-cola or french fries. who would have thunk it? cutting wasteful spending will suddenly cause a recession and make our economy worse and not stronger, according to you.

i think your argument is weak. i support the poster "20 trillion" on this.

And the big problem with your logic is that you think the federal government can do a better job managing our money than my wife and I can. Also, there is a ton of waste in the federal government. I have two extended family members who sit at a government desk all day and do absolutely nothing. Nice big benefits package and pension for them too. We need to downsize.

Another thing - we do invest in local infrastructure. It's called municipal bonds. More than a few million in schools, roads, etc. The wealthy are holding up this system. Don't let it come crashing down.

And the big problem with your logic is that you think the federal government can do a better job managing our money than my wife and I can.

I don't have to think it, after seeing your posts on here, I KNOW it!

It's called municipal bonds.

You know, it has long been popular with the right-of-center crowd to blame the debt crisis which precipitated this mess on overextended domestic borrowers, but it is worth pointing out that municipal bonds, backed by debt swaps (as they all are) were at least as responsible for the financial black hole we are dealing with as domestic debt.

In short, municipal bonds aren't the panacea you imagine.

The wealthy are holding up this system.

If that were true (which it isn't) then they aren't doing a very good job, despite the historically low tax rates, now are they?

We've been trying it your way since 2000, how's about we give raising the marginal rates a smidge, redistributing some of the wealth and getting some more people into the tax base? It's worked before.