Re: Puerto Rico... 51st state?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:54 pm
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.
The Jane's Addiction Discussion Forum
http://www.aintnoright.org/
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."LJF wrote:Obama says he wants to raise the tax on households making $250k or more.
47% of Republicans don't oppose Obama's plan.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.
Why are the top 5% making a third of all the income? There's no way of reading that as anything other than ridiculous.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.
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%.
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?mockbee wrote: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.
same for me.SR wrote:9 right
... 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.LJF wrote: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.
But that's still only $220,000 for four years. So basically you don't know what you're talking about.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
Adurentibus Spina wrote:... 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.LJF wrote: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.
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/But that's still only $220,000 for four years. So basically you don't know what you're talking about.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
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?
Like I said earlier I guess I live in my own world.Adurentibus Spina wrote:
You really must...LJF wrote:Like I said earlier I guess I live in my own world.Adurentibus Spina wrote:
SR wrote: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.LJF wrote:SR wrote:No, they do not....LJF wrote:Adurentibus Spina wrote: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.
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.
mockbee wrote: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.
rich
/riCH/
Adjective
Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.
Adurentibus Spina wrote:rich
/riCH/
Adjective
Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.
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.Making $250k doesn't mean you have either a great deal of money or assets, it just means you make $250k.
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......LJF wrote:
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.