Puerto Rico... 51st state?

[LJF]

No you love calling me and others stupid, racist and I can't remember all of the other things because my simple mind can't remember that many things.

[SR]

Relax L. I appreciate opposite positions personally. Some come off a bit strident (including me), but its just casual exchange on a janes bored. Like yrself, there are some really quite smart people here. Just sayin.

[Hype]

Obama says he wants to raise the tax on households making $250k or more.

I think I did slightly misread how the tax increases are going to be implemented, and as you mention, there is the complication of the additional taxes for the Affordable Care Act, which appears not to have anything to do with families: "A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts."

As a result, filing jointly could take some of the sting out of that, depending on your spouse's income. (This, of course, isn't an option for all gay couples, sadly.)

I also mis-remembered the current highest marginal rate as 36%, instead of 35%, and the rate it's going to increase to is actually 39.6, apparently (though they are still hashing this stuff out, so who knows).

You're right that Obama does want the marginal rate increase to be on households making 250,000 or higher. I still don't think there's a problem here.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domestic ... h-20121206

President Obama is right to say that the majority of Americans support his tax plan, but Republicans are also correct to point to constituents who don’t think taxes on the wealthy should be raised.
Overall, 65 percent of respondents in a new Quinnipiac University poll said they support raising taxes on households making over $250,000 in order to reduce the federal budget deficit. But those in favor were more likely to be Democrats. A majority of Republicans—53 percent—said they oppose the plan, touted by the president throughout his reelection campaign.

47% of Republicans don't oppose Obama's plan.

Using a somewhat different method of collecting data, the Tax Policy Center, a partnership between the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, estimates that about 6.07 million Americans earned above $200,000 in 2011. They make up the top 4.2 percent of taxpayers. But their income, an estimated $3.5 trillion, represents 32.5 percent of all the cash income earned.

Why are the top 5% making a third of all the income? There's no way of reading that as anything other than ridiculous.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1221/ ... -find-out/

Are you smarter than a Fox News viewer? How about a CNN viewer? Take our quiz to find out.

American voters were quizzed on their knowledge of issues and facts raised in the 2010 midterm elections, in a survey by World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

Respondents were also asked where they get their news from: Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, newspapers, network TV news, public broadcasting.

The survey found that "substantial levels of misinformation were present in the daily consumers of all news sources." But Fox News viewers were significantly more likely to be misinformed than those who get their news from other sources. And, greater exposure to Fox News increased the degree to which viewers were misinformed.

This is not simply a matter of partisan bias. People who vote Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to be misinformed than those who did not watch it – though by a lesser margin than those who vote Republican. Those who got their news from NPR, CNN, or MSNBC were better informed on most – but not all – of the issues in the survey.

We've presented the 11 questions just as the survey asked them. How well informed are you?

Quiz results
9 Correct
2 Wrong
You answered 9 of 11 questions correctly for a total score of 82%.

[SR]

9 right

[mockbee]

10/11

Apparently the US Chamber of Commerce did not support Republican Candidates......

I hate the news and never watch it, I only read NYT and listen to NPR. Not that that makes me any better than anyone else but the news is a joke. Of course, Fox is a joke but CNN is no better.

I doubt Puerto Rico will become a state. Hawaii and Alasha made sense for the natural resources. Actually I had a distaste for Puerto Rico for a while, I thought it was touristy and overun with stray dogs but Vieques Island is supposed to be beautiful and pristine, outside the areas the US has bombed to smithereens and there are supposed to be amazing lush Rio Camuy caves west of Ssn Juan. I would like to go someday.

[Hype]

10/11

Apparently the US Chamber of Commerce did not support Republican Candidates......

I hate the news and never watch it, I only read NYT and listen to NPR. Not that that makes me any better than anyone else but the news is a joke. Of course, Fox is a joke but CNN is no better.

I doubt Puerto Rico will become a state. Hawaii and Alasha made sense for the natural resources. Actually I had a distaste for Puerto Rico for a while, I thought it was touristy and overun with stray dogs but Vieques Island is supposed to be beautiful and pristine, outside the areas the US has bombed to smithereens and there are supposed to be amazing lush Rio Camuy caves west of Ssn Juan. I would like to go someday.

Bravo on the highest score so far. I couldn't figure out a couple, but then, I'm not an American, so it's weird that I know 82% of anything in your politics. I get some stuff from NPR on CBC radio sometimes. And I never watch CNN. I also think MSNBC is fucking ridiculous. Why is every show there an insane circle-jerk? They've got shit running round the clock talking about how amazing Jon Stewart is... I know they're openly Lefty on purpose, but what the fuck?

[Juana]

I'm okay with PR becoming a state. I love going there and have had lots of fun. As for taxes its a needed evil.

[Artemis]

9 right

same for me.

[clickie]

9 also this is ridiculous

[LJF]

So a household making $250,000 has 3 kids under the age of 10. Now this couple is going to try to save for the kids education and their retirement. For the kids it will cost $400-500k each to spend them to college, not grad school or med school just college. So let's work with that $400k number, that would mean they have to save $1.2MM to pay for college. Now don't forget that over that same period they will try to save for their retirement also. On top of that what if they wanted to send their kids to a private school instead of using the public school, because that is what the rich do. So for k-12 what maybe the average is $6k per yr, which it is probably higher but whatever. That would be $234,000 in total. So they will now be taxed on federal and state, also property tax. Maybe put in a vacation or two a year, country club fees.

That picture to me does look very rich. Yes they don't need all of those things, but if you are truly rich you should be able to do those things and not worry about it. Again I'm not saying $250k isn't a lot of money because it is, but in certain areas of this country it isn't rich. So yes I'd say increasing their taxes will hurt them.

[LJF]

Are we going to deal with the deficit or not????

I'd say lets go off the cliff if Republicans can't concede a dime on tax rates. Go to Clinton era rates, let them buy BMWs, no more Rolls Royces....... [/quote]





If this country is truly going to go after the deficit, it needs to be from both sides. If they are going to increase taxes, which is the revenue, well they better lower the spending. From what I can see that hasn't been mentioned once by the dems, they want more revenue and more spending, so how does that help the deficit and how is that the Republican's fault? If I was a republican I wouldn't agree to tax hikes without spending cuts, so I agree with them.

Here is an article that should scare the shit out of every American. To me the president sounds like a trust fund kid yelling at his parents saying, "give me the credit card and don't ask what and how much I spend because it doesn't matter. I want unlimited spending, now fuck off."

WASHINGTON -- The White House hardened its position that Congress should raise the U.S.'s borrowing limit without preconditions, adding an unpredictable new element into the high-stakes budget talks.

In a Wednesday speech to top corporate chiefs, President Barack Obama said he wouldn't negotiate with Republicans on this issue as he did in 2011.

"I want to send a very clear message to people here: We are not going to play that game next year," Mr. Obama said in remarks to the Business Roundtable, a trade group. He said Washington needs to "break that habit before it starts," referring to the way Republicans would like to use the debt limit to negotiate further spending cuts.

Mr. Obama was responding in part to an idea floated by some congressional Republicans to give the president the tax increases he has requested and thereby defer bigger arguments about the budget until next year. Republicans feel they would have more leverage then, because the debt ceiling would need to be raised.

Budget negotiations have entered a particularly unruly phase. In January, $500 billion in automatic tax increases and spending cuts will begin if Congress doesn't intervene. Democrats and Republicans have said they want to replace that fiscal cliff with a long-term plan to reduce the deficit, but they are at odds over how to proceed -- especially over taxes.

Just a month after the November election, the short-lived bipartisan spirit from the White House and Republicans has evaporated. Republican leaders say they are awaiting a new offer from the White House. The White House said it is awaiting a new proposal from Republicans.

With less than a month before the fiscal cliff kicks in, both sides are engaged in an increasingly bitter public relations battle over who is to blame. Talks are barely moving forward, although more than two weeks remain for a deal to come together.

Indeed, Wednesday afternoon, the president and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) talked by phone, according to someone present for the call. Details couldn't be learned.

Republicans in public responded angrily to Mr. Obama's position on the debt ceiling and reiterated their opposition to a plan Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has floated that would make it much harder for lawmakers to block future increases in the debt ceiling.

"It may be a good idea if you don't care about the debt, but it's a nonstarter for those of us who do," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said. "It also represents a dangerous attempt by a president to grab more power over spending, power that Congress must not and will not cede."

Mr. Geithner said Wednesday on CNBC that the White House and congressional Republicans are making "a little bit of progress," and said the Obama administration would pursue deeper spending cuts once Republicans softened their position on allowing tax rates to rise.

"I think there has been some progress and I think we're going to get there," Mr. Geithner said.

Republican leaders were trying to quell potential erosion from within their ranks. On Wednesday, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma joined a small but growing number of Republicans who have suggested they might agree to raise tax rates, a key White House demand.

Some of these Republicans say taking the tax issue off the table could strengthen their leverage to negotiate deeper spending cuts next year, when the White House would be forced to make concessions in exchange for a vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Republican leaders have so far not agreed to that strategy and continued to say tax rates would not rise. Mr. Boehner has said the White House would have to agree to spending cuts of equal or greater value to any increase in the debt ceiling.

"We agree there is no reason for drama surrounding a debt-limit increase," said Brendan Buck, a Boehner spokesman. "All that is required is the president getting serious about spending cuts."

The U.S. government has $16.308 trillion in debt, putting it just beneath the $16.394 trillion borrowing limit set by Congress. Because the government spends more money than it brings in through revenue, it is expected to run out of emergency measures to avoid hitting the debt ceiling by February or March, the Congressional Budget Office has said.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, many budget experts think the country would default on its obligations because it wouldn't have enough money to pay creditors.

The debt ceiling was created in 1917, and it has been raised 40 times in the past 30 years. The fight over whether and how to raise the debt ceiling became messy last year when Republicans refused to raise the borrowing limit unless the White House agreed to large spending cuts.

Those negotiations resulted in a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating after talks repeatedly fell apart, and leaders are now scrambling to patch together a last-minute deal.

[Hype]

So a household making $250,000 has 3 kids under the age of 10. Now this couple is going to try to save for the kids education and their retirement. For the kids it will cost $400-500k each to spend them to college, not grad school or med school just college. So let's work with that $400k number, that would mean they have to save $1.2MM to pay for college. Now don't forget that over that same period they will try to save for their retirement also. On top of that what if they wanted to send their kids to a private school instead of using the public school, because that is what the rich do. So for k-12 what maybe the average is $6k per yr, which it is probably higher but whatever. That would be $234,000 in total. So they will now be taxed on federal and state, also property tax. Maybe put in a vacation or two a year, country club fees.

That picture to me does look very rich. Yes they don't need all of those things, but if you are truly rich you should be able to do those things and not worry about it. Again I'm not saying $250k isn't a lot of money because it is, but in certain areas of this country it isn't rich. So yes I'd say increasing their taxes will hurt them.

... It doesn't necessarily cost $400-500,000 to send a kid to college. I'm aware that US schools can be expensive, but that seems like Harvard pricing.

Take UC Berkeley: http://registrar.berkeley.edu/feesched.html

If you're a California resiident, you only pay $7500 a year for tuition (and let's say they live on campus and pay $1000 a month for a room and meal plan, for eight months.) That's $15,000, not $100,000.

Okay, but maybe you're thinking all rich kids go to Princeton (like Carleton on the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air?):
Then you're more in the ballpark: http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/cost/

The estimated cost of attendance for 2012-13 is $54,780 and includes:

Tuition: $38,650
Room charge: $6,950
Board rate: $5,680
Estimated miscellaneous expenses: $3,500

But that's still only $220,000 for four years. So basically you don't know what you're talking about.

There are also these things called "student loans", and there are also scholarships. Rich people often work for companies that give out generous scholarships to douchey kids of employees.

Also, if you go to grad school for a non-professional degree (so, anything that's just a straight MA/MSc/PhD), you probably shouldn't go unless you get funding anyway.

So forget $400-500,000 per kid, because that ain't right. Even if they all go to Princeton, that's $660,000, total staggered over nearly a decade (say the first kid is 10, second kid is 8, third kid is 6, that makes 8 total years of payments, with larger amounts in the middle when all three kids are in college at the same time).

I'm pretty sure if you make $250,000 a year as a family it's pretty easy to start saving when your kids are little to pay for this. You have 18 years from the birth of the first child, and 22 years for the third.

And most people make more money as time goes on. If you're making $250,000 a year when your eldest child is 10, you're likely to be making considerably more when he's 18. (This is true of my parents, at least... and I suspect most... especially if you're rich...)

And sure, let's even say $10,000 a year for private school for all three kids from k-12. That's $360,000 over 16 years. For a total requirement of $1,020,000 over 24 years.

Like I said, if you're making $250,000... that's easy. Especially since your education savings should be in RESPs, so the tax issue is moot. Did you forget about income tax returns?

[LJF]

So a household making $250,000 has 3 kids under the age of 10. Now this couple is going to try to save for the kids education and their retirement. For the kids it will cost $400-500k each to spend them to college, not grad school or med school just college. So let's work with that $400k number, that would mean they have to save $1.2MM to pay for college. Now don't forget that over that same period they will try to save for their retirement also. On top of that what if they wanted to send their kids to a private school instead of using the public school, because that is what the rich do. So for k-12 what maybe the average is $6k per yr, which it is probably higher but whatever. That would be $234,000 in total. So they will now be taxed on federal and state, also property tax. Maybe put in a vacation or two a year, country club fees.

That picture to me does look very rich. Yes they don't need all of those things, but if you are truly rich you should be able to do those things and not worry about it. Again I'm not saying $250k isn't a lot of money because it is, but in certain areas of this country it isn't rich. So yes I'd say increasing their taxes will hurt them.

... It doesn't necessarily cost $400-500,000 to send a kid to college. I'm aware that US schools can be expensive, but that seems like Harvard pricing.

Take UC Berkeley: http://registrar.berkeley.edu/feesched.html



If you're a California resiident, you only pay $7500 a year for tuition (and let's say they live on campus and pay $1000 a month for a room and meal plan, for eight months.) That's $15,000, not $100,000.

Okay, but maybe you're thinking all rich kids go to Princeton (like Carleton on the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air?):
Then you're more in the ballpark: http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/cost/

The estimated cost of attendance for 2012-13 is $54,780 and includes:

Tuition: $38,650
Room charge: $6,950
Board rate: $5,680
Estimated miscellaneous expenses: $3,500

But that's still only $220,000 for four years. So basically you don't know what you're talking about.

There are also these things called "student loans", and there are also scholarships. Rich people often work for companies that give out generous scholarships to douchey kids of employees.

Also, if you go to grad school for a non-professional degree (so, anything that's just a straight MA/MSc/PhD), you probably shouldn't go unless you get funding anyway.

So forget $400-500,000 per kid, because that ain't right. Even if they all go to Princeton, that's $660,000, total staggered over nearly a decade (say the first kid is 10, second kid is 8, third kid is 6, that makes 8 total years of payments, with larger amounts in the middle when all three kids are in college at the same time).

I'm pretty sure if you make $250,000 a year as a family it's pretty easy to start saving when your kids are little to pay for this. You have 18 years from the birth of the first child, and 22 years for the third.

And most people make more money as time goes on. If you're making $250,000 a year when your eldest child is 10, you're likely to be making considerably more when he's 18. (This is true of my parents, at least... and I suspect most... especially if you're rich...)

And sure, let's even say $10,000 a year for private school for all three kids from k-12. That's $360,000 over 16 years. For a total requirement of $1,020,000 over 24 years.

Like I said, if you're making $250,000... that's easy. Especially since your education savings should be in RESPs, so the tax issue is moot. Did you forget about income tax returns?

Yes there are "student loans" and I'm so glad that you mentioned that because if you are truly rich you shouldn't need student loans.

I do know what I'm talking about with college expenses. You are right I projected expenses for the highest prices schools, but again the rich should be able to afford to send their kids anywhere. All rich kids want to be like Carleton on fresh prince.

You may make more over time, but the cost of living also goes up. So does your increased earners keep up with the increased cost of living?

$250k is a great living, but it isn't rich in northern new jersey.

[Hype]

[LJF]

Sorry PR, but I seem to have changed this into a tax & rich issue here. Read this this morning and thought it was interesting:

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate
A liberal article of faith that confiscatory taxes fed the postwar boom turns out to be an Edsel of an economic idea.


By PETER SCHIFF
Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.

True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)

Enlarge Image

CloseCorbis
In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans—genuinely wealthy by the standards of the day—paid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.

In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.

The changes came about not so much by movements in rates but by the addition of tax credits for the poor and the elimination of exemptions for the wealthy. In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government. Those nostalgic for 1950s-era "tax fairness" should bear this in mind.

The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.

For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.

Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed.

It's hard to determine how much otherwise taxable income disappeared through tax shelters in the 1950s. As a result, direct comparisons between the 1950s and now are difficult. However, it is worth noting that from 1958 to 2010, the taxes paid by the top 3% of earners, as a percentage of total personal income (which can't be reduced by shelters), increased to 3.96% from 2.72%, while the percentage paid by the bottom two-thirds of filers fell to 0.51% in 2010 from 2.7%. This starker division of relative tax burdens can be explained by the inability of upper-income groups to shelter income.

It is a testament to the shallow nature of the national economic conversation that higher tax rates can be justified by reference to a fantasy—a 91% marginal rate that hardly any top earners paid.

In reality, tax policies that diminish the incentives and capacities of innovators, business owners and investors will not spur economic improvement. Such policies will, however, satisfy the instincts of those who want to "stick it to the rich." Never mind that the rich have already been stuck fairly well

[LJF]

Like I said earlier I guess I live in my own world.

[Hype]

Like I said earlier I guess I live in my own world.

You really must...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey ... ita_income

Even in Morris county, the richest county overall, if your family is making $250,000 a year, you're making more than double the median family income.

If you live in Essex Fells, the richest place, you're still making exactly double the median family income (which is more than the median household income).

[mockbee]

Blaming democrats/the president for deficit spending is hilarious.......... The largest expansion of government/military spending and creating whole new departments came under Republican presidents, starting phony wars and the bloated and largely unnecessary homeland security dept. But whatever, there seems to be an eternal disagreement over responsibility that will never be resolved with reason. I know there is hyperbole on both sides.

I agree there needs to be serious cuts put on the table and accountability for government services, such as SS and Medicare, they will be insolvent if nothing is done. I think Democrats are open to that if serious concessions are made with high income tax 'increases' - the Bush tax cuts were never intended to be permanent anyways, so calling it an increase is somewhat a misnomer.
Also the scenario LJF is putting forth regarding education/living expenses sounds like something concerning a family making quite a bit more than a quarter million a year. Yes, we are talking about those people but then your numbers are all off........ Maybe they will have to send Timmy to Berkeley instead of Harvard or Princeton, if they choose to allocate their money that way. So what? Welcome to reality. We all sacrifice. And don't worry, the poor will always have it way worse, it you want to say, but it just isn't fair, the rich worked so much harder and were so much smarter than those poor people.

[LJF]

Texas should just pay for Puerto Rico's pensions.

sure just add that onto all of the other debt this country has. You know just tax the rich they don't pay enough.

No, they do not....

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

so you think it would be a good idea to add more to this countries already fucked up situation. We can tax people 100% but if the government out spends the revenue coming in where does that leave us.

So great increase taxes on the "rich" which earning $250k really isn't "rich" in a lot of areas of this country and at the same time increase our spending. To me that doesn't seem smart.

Move the top bracket to 39%, which Obama says he wants to do to bring it back to the Clinton era. Well what about the 3.8% they will pay for obamacare? That will bring them to above Clinton era taxes. Also add in state tax, property tax and whatever else. I'd say they are paying their fair amount. But clearly I'm in minority here.

I just don't see how adding PR as the 51 state helps anything.

It's a MARGIN tax on 250K and above....I hope you know what that means. It means that only everything over 250k is taxed at an advanced rate. Oh, and I have a lurking suspicion you didn't even read my favorite Singer essay of all time.

I just finished reading it and it was very good. At times it made me feel like a selfish prick. One of the reason I don't like taxes is I believe the government wastes money and it isn't always used for good things. I'd rather see less tax and more personal giving. Pick a few areas of your own interest and give either time or money. To me there would be less waste and more control.

Again not saying there shouldn't be any tax, I understand the need.

[LJF]

Blaming democrats/the president for deficit spending is hilarious.......... The largest expansion of government/military spending and creating whole new departments came under Republican presidents, starting phony wars and the bloated and largely unnecessary homeland security dept. But whatever, there seems to be an eternal disagreement over responsibility that will never be resolved with reason. I know there is hyperbole on both sides.

I agree there needs to be serious cuts put on the table and accountability for government services, such as SS and Medicare, they will be insolvent if nothing is done. I think Democrats are open to that if serious concessions are made with high income tax 'increases' - the Bush tax cuts were never intended to be permanent anyways, so calling it an increase is somewhat a misnomer.
Also the scenario LJF is putting forth regarding education/living expenses sounds like something concerning a family making quite a bit more than a quarter million a year. Yes, we are talking about those people but then your numbers are all off........ Maybe they will have to send Timmy to Berkeley instead of Harvard or Princeton, if they choose to allocate their money that way. So what? Welcome to reality. We all sacrifice. And don't worry, the poor will always have it way worse, it you want to say, but it just isn't fair, the rich worked so much harder and were so much smarter than those poor people.

not blaming just the dems and the president. You said,"I'd say lets go off the cliff if Republicans can't concede a dime on tax rates. Go to Clinton era rates, let them buy BMWs, no more Rolls Royces" and I'm saying the dems have just as much to blame if they won't look at cutting spending. I don't like W and think he was terrible for this country. He started this whole shit show and Obama has kept that ball rolling and in fact increased it at a faster rate.

How are my numbers off? If you are truly rich you do what you want money is no object. Just write the check and move on, and that isn't at the $250k level.

[Hype]

rich
/riCH/
Adjective
Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.

[LJF]

rich
/riCH/
Adjective
Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.

Making $250k doesn't mean you have either a great deal of money or assets, it just means you make $250k.

Here's what Warren Buffett had to say about this taken from his NYT op-ed on 11/25

This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that’s the place to start. I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.

Buffett seems to be obama's go to guy.

[Hype]

Making $250k doesn't mean you have either a great deal of money or assets, it just means you make $250k.

You're being dense here, I swear. No, it doesn't just mean you make $250,000 a year (that's the fact, but facts can mean more than one thing). In fact, it means you're in the top 2% of income earners in the country. If you don't think this means you have a great deal of money (assets are a red herring... you could make ten million dollars a year and have no assets), then I don't know what to say... like I said before, I don't *want* to think you're stupid. I'd rather that you actually had a point here... but I just don't know how to be more charitable than I already have been.

And... I go further than Buffett, and I have good reasons to do so. The appeals to Buffett are not meant to be appeals to authority (and if they were, they'd be fallacious). What they are are just a way of providing an example of a super-rich person who understands that his paying more taxes is in everyone's interest, including his own. It isn't valid to then take his specifics as doctrine, at least, without further argument.

The top 5% of Americans account for 1/3rd of all the wealth. Paying 4.6% more income tax on the highest part of their income is not going to increase poverty. It's not going to increase costs. It's just going to help the country get back on its feet.

[mockbee]

How are my numbers off? If you are truly rich you do what you want money is no object. Just write the check and move on, and that isn't at the $250k level.

This doesn't make any sense. Your numbers are off because you were assuming the family was making 250k, I was saying in order to be impacted by tax increases they would have to be making far greater than that......

And your estimations of what rich is based on nothing empirical......such...kinda... 'liberal' wishy washy thinking....

What about the poor family that wants a private jet, not have to just travel first class all the time or only be able to occasionally charter a flight! What about them!!??? They are not getting what they want, they are limited by their finances, right?

[Hype]

I think a more interesting way of going about this argument would be to show how much more money a family making 250,000 a year will pay under the new rate, supposing NO write-offs, deductions, rebates, or tax-havens whatsoever:

You can figure this out here: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

2012 tax (supposing no deductions, etc., as mentioned above) on a MARRIED couple filing jointly for income of $250,000: $59,407 (23% of their total income).

In the year 2000, that same couple would have paid: $73,049.

If you go here: http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/ta ... calculator you can figure out how the different proposals would affect a family.

I typed in 125,000 for one partner, and 125,000 for a spouse, making $250,000 for a family. Added 3 dependents. It tells me that under the Obama proposal in 2013 this family would pay $52,376. That's $7,000 less than above, and $20,000 less than in the year 2000....

So what exactly is all this whining about?