Truth stranger than fiction

[Cie]

Ssd, you are correct that all of new orleans had plenty of notice and time to evacuate, but warnings of katrina as a cat 5 came 2-3 days prior. We are so accustomed locally to hear "empty" warnings leading up to all huricanes that it had become a boy who cried wolf situation to some degree. Most who stayed would have stayed with 2 months advance warning. Elderly who survived betsy were going to ride it out with shotguns in their hands no matter what, which is PART of the reason average age deceased was over 65. The poor , especially in black community, remained behind in large numbers. I sent out my pregnant wife with her family with plenty of time, but planned to stay behind to protect our assets until it was made clear that cat 4 or 5 was expected on 8-26-05.

Your comments on corps funding (Clinton and w at fault) are on point, but there was professional incompetence involved as well. The manner in which the levees were constructed would not have held off a cat 3 that entered the mouth of the river.

 

[Chadman]

The consequences--
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d6c9 ---...6267113524583554.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Where the Tax Money Is

Obama targets the middle class while pretending to tax only the rich.

Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers?those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000?paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

So, what are you saying? You want us to look at a statement that shows that the upper 1% is avoiding their tax responsibility at levels anything the remaining 99% cannot avoid? Just so I know - are you agreeing that the upper 1% has access to ways of avoiding taxes that the remaining 99% of our country cannot take advantage of? Before we go any further to positioning responsibility - can you at least answer this question - since YOU made it a point?

And, not that you'll EVER address this (I've tried, repeatedly...) what was the upper 1%'s percentage of income for the country? You mention the 38% tax responsibility (which they avoided much of, as you point out). The people making the most money pay far less than their respective numbers say they should due to their ability to avoid doing that, and they benefit from the same tax policies and society that protects their interests. Which includes (NOW) unfettered financing of public elections, thanks to the conservative Supreme Court.

:0corn

 

[Mags]

So, what are you saying? You want us to look at a statement that shows that the upper 1% is avoiding their tax responsibility at levels anything the remaining 99% cannot avoid? Just so I know - are you agreeing that the upper 1% has access to ways of avoiding taxes that the remaining 99% of our country cannot take advantage of? Before we go any further to positioning responsibility - can you at least answer this question - since YOU made it a point?

And, not that you'll EVER address this (I've tried, repeatedly...) what was the upper 1%'s percentage of income for the country? You mention the 38% tax responsibility (which they avoided much of, as you point out). The people making the most money pay far less than their respective numbers say they should due to their ability to avoid doing that, and they benefit from the same tax policies and society that protects their interests. Which includes (NOW) unfettered financing of public elections, thanks to the conservative Supreme Court.

:0corn

Chad:

Both income groups have access to deductions that other doesn't. In fact, the poor have access to all deductions - its just that they are not in position to do anything about those. But it is not an accident that 48% of folks don't pay Federal income tax - they have many deductions and credits that many of us don't have.

I don't mind Obama going after millionaires and billionares with tax increases. But that is not what he is proposing. He is lumping in familliies that make $250K with the millionaires and billionares - that ain't right.

What they should do is add some new tax brackets and $1M and up - at much higher rates. Then he'd be doing what he said - and those folks truly CAN afford it....

 

[Cie]

I don't mind Obama going after millionaires and billionares with tax increases. But that is not what he is proposing. He is lumping in familliies that make $250K with the millionaires and billionares - that ain't right.

What they should do is add some new tax brackets and $1M and up - at much higher rates. Then he'd be doing what he said - and those folks truly CAN afford it....

I can't speak for other communities, but I know from experience that in new orleans, 250k income is middle class. Targeting the "rich", to me, means targeting those in excess of a number well above 250k. Incrementally increasing income tax starting at twice that figure makes sense.

Elimination of tax loopholes which allowed the near-billionaire owners of the LA Dodgers to avoid paying income taxes for the past years is essential.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

So, what are you saying? You want us to look at a statement that shows that the upper 1% is avoiding their tax responsibility at levels anything the remaining 99% cannot avoid? Just so I know - are you agreeing that the upper 1% has access to ways of avoiding taxes that the remaining 99% of our country cannot take advantage of? Before we go any further to positioning responsibility - can you at least answer this question - since YOU made it a point?

And, not that you'll EVER address this (I've tried, repeatedly...) what was the upper 1%'s percentage of income for the country? You mention the 38% tax responsibility (which they avoided much of, as you point out). The people making the most money pay far less than their respective numbers say they should due to their ability to avoid doing that, and they benefit from the same tax policies and society that protects their interests. Which includes (NOW) unfettered financing of public elections, thanks to the conservative Supreme Court.

:0corn

On who pays their share--I'm going to put this up --ONE MORE TIME-

If you can't see the obvious I might suggest you refraim from teaching any math classes.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html


Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?



Tax Year 2008

<TABLE border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>Percentiles Ranked by AGI

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>AGI Threshold on Percentiles

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>Top 1%

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>$380,354

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>38.02

​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>Top 5%

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>$159,619

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>58.72

​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>Top 10%

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>$113,799

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>69.94

​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>Top 25%

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>$67,280

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>86.34

​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>Top 50%

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>$33,048

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>97.30

​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>Bottom 50%

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148><$33,048

​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>2.7

​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=443 colSpan=3>Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income

Source: Internal Revenue Service​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>​

 

[Chadman]

Here we go again, Wayne - presenting a chart with no context. How many times have you done this, Wayne? I know I've answered it repeatedly with info showing how much more of the income they make which gives an actual, measurable account of things. Not just part of the story that you ALWAYS bring up - and I note you bring it up IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS AGAIN.

Sorry, I'm still paying attention, and if we have to do this post/repost scenario YET AGAIN, I suppose we can. Somehow, I doubt you have those threads bookmarked for reference. Usually they are an attempt at drive-by sensationalism, but have been caught more than once.

And Mags - I hardly think comparing the actual deductions that the wealthy and the poor actually take will make your case stronger, but I'd be willing to entertain that exercise if you like. I've said all along that I'd be happy to look at a flat tax or consumption tax across all earners - and eliminate all of the deductions that "all" of these people supposedly have access to. But rarely do I see high earners want to go down that road. Why is that? Probably because they make a large part of their money from non-income sources (as was mentioned in the article you linked in another thread).

 

[Mags]

Here we go again, Wayne - presenting a chart with no context. How many times have you done this, Wayne? I know I've answered it repeatedly with info showing how much more of the income they make which gives an actual, measurable account of things. Not just part of the story that you ALWAYS bring up - and I note you bring it up IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS AGAIN.

Sorry, I'm still paying attention, and if we have to do this post/repost scenario YET AGAIN, I suppose we can. Somehow, I doubt you have those threads bookmarked for reference. Usually they are an attempt at drive-by sensationalism, but have been caught more than once.

And Mags - I hardly think comparing the actual deductions that the wealthy and the poor actually take will make your case stronger, but I'd be willing to entertain that exercise if you like. I've said all along that I'd be happy to look at a flat tax or consumption tax across all earners - and eliminate all of the deductions that "all" of these people supposedly have access to. But rarely do I see high earners want to go down that road. Why is that? Probably because they make a large part of their money from non-income sources (as was mentioned in the article you linked in another thread).

Chad - count me as one that would love a flat tax, with absolutely no exclusions for anyone, that starts at the first dollar earned for everyone.

And, to increase taxes, how about stopping all the cash based stuff going on? Tips are a great example. Don't know about you guys, but I never tip less than 20% (even more if the bill is under $20).. Yet waitresses and waiters only have to claim 8% on their taxes. That's 12%+ of untaxed money. Not to mention all the "cash jobs" that go on in our country.

Tax all the wages - at the same rate (not sure if 15% is the right number - read it somewhere) and we'd have plenty of money.....

FYI - I was talking about the deductions that people have access to. I don't know if any deductions that ONLY the higher earners can take. But there are a bunch of deductions that are only allowed for the low earners. I wasn't referring to ones that are actually used. There are a lot of them that I can't get my hands on......

Read the tax article I posted. I found it very enlightening...

 

[Chadman]

I'm pretty busy this afternoon, Mags, I just skimmed it. The thought occurred to me that there are options for multiple earner families that make money together and file together. They can file separately, which would probably reduce the amount on one or the other somewhat compared to the joint total. There are clearly benefits for filing jointly, though, which benefit the couple and help offset the extra taxing.

I don't disagree that the number targeted seems pretty low in some regard. For those unable to move money around like the really wealthy, this will be a bigger issue. I just get very tired of hearing how tough the current tax situation is for those that can avoid a great deal of their responsibility simply because they have the means and opportunity to REALLY do it (not just in theory that everyone could if they had enough money). This frustration extends to businesses as we've seen examples of quite a bit lately. Which is another subject.

 

[Mags]

The thought occurred to me that there are options for multiple earner families that make money together and file together. They can file separately, which would probably reduce the amount on one or the other somewhat compared to the joint total. There are clearly benefits for filing jointly, though, which benefit the couple and help offset the extra taxing.

Chad - actually, filing separately as a couple doesn't help. The IRS already thought of that - there are separate tax tables for "Married" and "Married filing Separately". In most cases (inlcuding ours), the calculation comes out higher for Married Filing Separately. So, we just file as Married.

However, the best tax advice would be to get a true divorce, stay together, and file in that manner. The savings are tremedous - especially since Obama defines rich as $200,000 single, $250K family.

This is just another reason why people live together and don't get married - there are tremendous tax benefits to it. Different (more lenient) tax tables apply to singles. This is really apparent if both husband/wife make approximately the same income. There is a huge marriage penalty there. I mean a LOT.

There are a lot of couples that are evading taxes out there just with that technique - shacking up and not having the combined married tables applying to them. This is another area of the tax code that could be cleaned up.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Here we go again, Wayne - presenting a chart with no context. How many times have you done this, Wayne? I know I've answered it repeatedly with info showing how much more of the income they make which gives an actual, measurable account of things. Not just part of the story that you ALWAYS bring up - and I note you bring it up IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS AGAIN.

Sorry, I'm still paying attention, and if we have to do this post/repost scenario YET AGAIN, I suppose we can. Somehow, I doubt you have those threads bookmarked for reference. Usually they are an attempt at drive-by sensationalism, but have been caught more than once.

And Mags - I hardly think comparing the actual deductions that the wealthy and the poor actually take will make your case stronger, but I'd be willing to entertain that exercise if you like. I've said all along that I'd be happy to look at a flat tax or consumption tax across all earners - and eliminate all of the deductions that "all" of these people supposedly have access to. But rarely do I see high earners want to go down that road. Why is that? Probably because they make a large part of their money from non-income sources (as was mentioned in the article you linked in another thread).

Chad buddy--as one of my favs here it just warps my mind how the obvious escapes you at times.

You need to face the facts despite the drive by media reports--

The rich pay biggest portion and highest % of income.

--and not only did everyone else that paid taxes (bout 50%) get a tax break along with the rich -the lowest bracket got the largest tax cut.

Unless you tell us that you and wife sent in extra money you saved by tax break in protest
--I have to assume your stance is just political posturing.
Fair enough.

 

[Chadman]

Chad buddy--as one of my favs here it just warps my mind how the obvious escapes you at times.

You need to face the facts despite the drive by media reports--

The rich pay biggest portion and highest % of income.

--and not only did everyone else that paid taxes (bout 50%) get a tax break along with the rich -the lowest bracket got the largest tax cut.

Unless you tell us that you and wife sent in extra money you saved by tax break in protest
--I have to assume your stance is just political posturing.
Fair enough.

A couple things here. First, what exactly escaped me? The fact that the highest earners payed the biggest percentage of taxes? I've never said otherwise. Are you saying something else? Did my point escape you, while we're at it?

As for paying the highest percentage of income - that is not something that is equal for high earners - they have income from a variety of sources, and most make a great deal of income from sources other than earnings from their employment. They have the ability to reduce their income level by moving money to other areas, and routinely do. So, the base rate is a larger percentage, yes, but this is not something that reflects their actual worth or what they take in each year.

I've still yet to see how a reduction in taxes caused any kind of economic benefit to our country during the Bush and now Obama years. Saw an interesting chart that jobs in this country have dropped strongly while jobs sent overseas have risen dramatically at that time. So, where is the job creation due to lowering taxes? That's an outright fabrication, and I invite anyone to show me otherwise - have at it, Wayne. Do you really think reducing taxes results in the wealthy spending more in their day to day lives? Certainly reducing the lower tax burden would result in daily spending - because people have many decisions to make with that money. It's far from discretionary - it will be spent in the economy.

I did not send in extra money as a protest. I'm not complaining about my tax burden, I know that much of what we pay in goes to good things that make our lives happy and successful. I don't bitch about taxes - I have a good life and our tax system is a large part of the reason why it is so good. Some of the new changes (taxes and otherwise) are concerning though, and I am concerned about what might result because of them.

 

[Mags]

As for paying the highest percentage of income - that is not something that is equal for high earners - they have income from a variety of sources, and most make a great deal of income from sources other than earnings from their employment. They have the ability to reduce their income level by moving money to other areas, and routinely do. So, the base rate is a larger percentage, yes, but this is not something that reflects their actual worth or what they take in each year.

I have to jump in here Chad. This is just wrong.

It IS true for the truly rich - those who make $1M or more in a year. They do have diverse income streams.

But many of the people that Obama is labeling as rich - those in the $250K to maybe $400K income area - certainly are not, and make those wages via 2 income households. That is where the vast majority of folks that will be hurt by this tax talk reside - and the ones that do spend their money and do not hoard it.

But Obama is not targeting the rich - he is targeting the upper middle class. And that is wrong.

If he was truly about targeting the rich (such as himself), he would simply add another tax bracket at the $750K or $1M mark - maybe 45% or so.

But Obama doesn't want to hammer the rich - he wants to hit the middle class. And yes, in most areas of the country, a two-earner household with kids making $250K is certainly not rich.

I wish we had "multiple sources" of income in our family - but, that is for the rich only I guess....

 

[Chadman]

I appreciate what you are saying, Mags, but he certainly is targeting the rich, along with those that make a very good living. I agree with creating more levels, but would prefer (I think) something equal across the board. The progressive system does take into effect a lot of things and it makes sense in many ways. I agree it will be tougher on those that you mention, but it will create real revenue from those that it will not cause hardship on, and will go back to more historically relevant rates.

I think at this point we have to look at all areas of deficit reduction, and I think asking those who make a lot of money to return to paying taxes at rates that were either common or even low historically is a reasonable part of a plan. I think that a family who makes $250,000 to $400,000 to be a family that makes a lot of money, comparatively, in this country - or in most countries. I think cutting spending is also important - probably more important. But getting politicians to agree on how to do that is significantly more difficult and will take much longer to achieve. It should be done, for sure.

 

[Chadman]

I just don't understand how people can say that $250,000 to $400,000 is not making a lot of money in America. This literally represents less than 2% of the population. Wouldn't common sense tell you that less than 2% of the people in a country should be considered wealthy in democratic country that espouses a free market economy?

i keep hearing about where you live should be considered in how wealthy you are, because you have to pay more to live in those places. I can appreciate the cost of living factor, but this is factored in when considering those places paying a lot more in salary due to the markets they operate in. It's pretty much a wash, and there are reasons why people live there and stay there. Because they can make more money - enough more that it makes financial sense to live there.

Now if people can't live within their means at $250,000 to $400,000 a year, that probably deals more with their personal choices in household finances as much as anything else. There are exceptions and unplanned events that can affect that, of course, but that kind of money generally should take care of a family pretty well.

 

[ssd]

Problem with hitting the $250k -$400k range harder is it dis-incentivizes those people to earn. Why work harder to make more when their actual take home can be close to the same by having their AGI fall down a rung.

 

[Duff Miver]

Mags would shit his diaper if he ever had $250K in income.

 

[StevieD]

I agree that we need new brackets at the top. Not sure I can go with a flat tax. A person making $30,000 a year needs the $3000 more than the guy making $2,000,000 needs $20,000. Plus the rich get richer many times because of the deductions they can take. It is messy. But really think we have to attack the over rich with the same vigor as they attacked the middle class.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo..._thelookout/labor-lavish-ceo-pay-still-rising

 

[Duff Miver]

Problem with hitting the $250k -$400k range harder is it dis-incentivizes those people to earn. Why work harder to make more when their actual take home can be close to the same by having their AGI fall down a rung.

Come on - you know better than that. The person with $400K income will keep a lot more than the person with $250K.

Here: $400K taxable income; income tax is $103K, net $297K.

$250K taxable income; income tax is $54K, net $196K

Run a few numbers for yourself -

http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/inc02;jsessionid=8D5EA5F34FBEE1C3F1D1D07A586DCBE4?skn=#results

 

[Duff Miver]

I wish we had "multiple sources" of income in our family - but, that is for the rich only I guess....

Put her ass to work....

 

[Chadman]

Problem with hitting the $250k -$400k range harder is it dis-incentivizes those people to earn. Why work harder to make more when their actual take home can be close to the same by having their AGI fall down a rung.

I understand this, but I don't know of many people that would avoid making more money that are on a path to making even more - aren't these supposedly the "hard workers and successful people" we hear so much about? How about the upper 1%? The ones who are supposedly hit the hardest? Their incomes have gone up DRAMATICALLY since the 70's, and all I hear about is how we are making things so much tougher for them. They certainly don't appear to be dis-incentivized despite conservative claims for years, and I doubt those in the range you talk about would tread water for very long if they had options to go higher. You know, working harder and all that.