About your "tax cut"....

[Coburn In 2012]

Once again the old liberal lies are exposed...

http://janechastain.com/2009/03/05/about-your-tax-cut/

[opebo]

Thanks for the peice of charmless, simpleminded, obvious propaganda, Coburn.  You always deliver.

But keep in mind - no body's worried about taxes when they've got no job.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would post in detail about this topic if any other poster started this thread. Trying to debate Coburn is like trying to debate Phil or a turnip. So I don't see a point.

I agree with Opebo (Hate saying that ) this is just simpleminded tax cut garbage.

[TeePee4Prez]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

[Smash255]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

Even in NYC over $250,000 is quite a bit.

[opebo]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

I'm all for more brackets in the above 500K level, though only if the rates are reasonable - well over 50%.  But 200K-500K is plenty in NYC, where the masses still live on about 20% of that income.

[Marokai Backbeat]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

That is actually a very good idea and something I've held for a long time. Our tax system isn't really truly "progressive" it's just less flat. We need to create more tax brackets so we can properly tax those at the top bracket. It's hard to raise taxes on the upper classmen when you'll end up slamming those making 250k who might not necessarily be able to cope with a 45% or higher tax rate. (Or something along those lines, that was just a random number.)

[opebo]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

That is actually a very good idea and something I've held for a long time. Our tax system isn't really truly "progressive" it's just less flat. We need to create more tax brackets so we can properly tax those at the top bracket. It's hard to raise taxes on the upper classmen when you'll end up slamming those making 250k who might not necessarily be able to cope with a 45% or higher tax rate. (Or something along those lines, that was just a random number.)

The key to reducing the privilege of the upper class (the million plus per year types) is not so much to tax income as to tax assets.  Find out what they have and take a few percent of it per year, regardless of what they claim they did or did not 'make' in income.. its too easy for them to hide income.

[Marokai Backbeat]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

That is actually a very good idea and something I've held for a long time. Our tax system isn't really truly "progressive" it's just less flat. We need to create more tax brackets so we can properly tax those at the top bracket. It's hard to raise taxes on the upper classmen when you'll end up slamming those making 250k who might not necessarily be able to cope with a 45% or higher tax rate. (Or something along those lines, that was just a random number.)

The key to reducing the privilege of the upper class (the million plus per year types) is not so much to tax income as to tax assets.  Find out what they have and take a few percent of it per year, regardless of what they claim they did or did not 'make' in income.. its too easy for them to hide income.

Too true.

[TeePee4Prez]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

Even in NYC over $250,000 is quite a bit.

If you have a family to support, not really.  It's comfortable in the Philly area for a family of 4-6, but not wealthy.  For a place like Shamokin, PA, you'd live like a king with that.  Then again how can you tax regionally?

[Smash255]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

Even in NYC over $250,000 is quite a bit.

If you have a family to support, not really.  It's comfortable in the Philly area for a family of 4-6, but not wealthy.  For a place like Shamokin, PA, you'd live like a king with that.  Then again how can you tax regionally?

I do agree that we should perhaps have another bracket at the million mark, but someone who is making over $250,000 is still well off.  Obviously they aren't going to be as well off as other parts of the country, but they are still doing rather well.  Hell look on Long Island (one of the highest income and cost of living parts of the country) its only the top 4-5% that make over that amount.

[Coburn In 2012]

I would post in detail about this topic if any other poster started this thread. Trying to debate Coburn is like trying to debate Phil

Do you mean Keystone Phil?  Thank you for the compliment he is one of the few intelligent posters here on this forum.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would post in detail about this topic if any other poster started this thread. Trying to debate Coburn is like trying to debate Phil

Do you mean Keystone Phil?  Thank you for the compliment he is one of the few intelligent posters here on this forum.

I'm sure coming from you he'll be more than happy to hear that.

[paul718]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

Even in NYC over $250,000 is quite a bit.

If you have a family to support, not really.  It's comfortable in the Philly area for a family of 4-6, but not wealthy.  For a place like Shamokin, PA, you'd live like a king with that.  Then again how can you tax regionally?

I do agree that we should perhaps have another bracket at the million mark, but someone who is making over $250,000 is still well off.  Obviously they aren't going to be as well off as other parts of the country, but they are still doing rather well.  Hell look on Long Island (one of the highest income and cost of living parts of the country) its only the top 4-5% that make over that amount.

I always have trouble with this debate.  Does the $250K level relate to individual income, or household income?  Also, do "median income" stats refer to individual or household?

[Smash255]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

Even in NYC over $250,000 is quite a bit.

If you have a family to support, not really.  It's comfortable in the Philly area for a family of 4-6, but not wealthy.  For a place like Shamokin, PA, you'd live like a king with that.  Then again how can you tax regionally?

I do agree that we should perhaps have another bracket at the million mark, but someone who is making over $250,000 is still well off.  Obviously they aren't going to be as well off as other parts of the country, but they are still doing rather well.  Hell look on Long Island (one of the highest income and cost of living parts of the country) its only the top 4-5% that make over that amount.

I always have trouble with this debate.  Does the $250K level relate to individual income, or household income?  Also, do "median income" stats refer to individual or household?

The $250,000 refers to the married filing jointly income, but not always household income, for example having grown children who still live at home wouldn't be included.   Median household income would take all the income earners into consideration.  For example lets say you have a married couple which have a combined income of $175,000 and two grown children making $50,000 each still living at home.  The household income would be $275,000, however they wouldn't be in the 250,000 + tax bracket.  The married couple would pay based on the $175,000 they made, and the children would each pay on the $50,000 they make.  Not sure if that answers your question.

[paul718]

I do agree that we should perhaps have another bracket at the million mark, but someone who is making over $250,000 is still well off.  Obviously they aren't going to be as well off as other parts of the country, but they are still doing rather well.  Hell look on Long Island (one of the highest income and cost of living parts of the country) its only the top 4-5% that make over that amount.

I always have trouble with this debate.  Does the $250K level relate to individual income, or household income?  Also, do "median income" stats refer to individual or household?

The $250,000 refers to the married filing jointly income, but not always household income, for example having grown children who still live at home wouldn't be included.   Median household income would take all the income earners into consideration.  For example lets say you have a married couple which have a combined income of $175,000 and two grown children making $50,000 each still living at home.  The household income would be $275,000, however they wouldn't be in the 250,000 + tax bracket.  The married couple would pay based on the $175,000 they made, and the children would each pay on the $50,000 they make.  Not sure if that answers your question.

Yup.  Thanks!

So when you say that the top 4-5% of Long Islanders make that amount, you're referring to joint income, right? 

[Smash255]

I do agree that we should perhaps have another bracket at the million mark, but someone who is making over $250,000 is still well off.  Obviously they aren't going to be as well off as other parts of the country, but they are still doing rather well.  Hell look on Long Island (one of the highest income and cost of living parts of the country) its only the top 4-5% that make over that amount.

I always have trouble with this debate.  Does the $250K level relate to individual income, or household income?  Also, do "median income" stats refer to individual or household?

The $250,000 refers to the married filing jointly income, but not always household income, for example having grown children who still live at home wouldn't be included.   Median household income would take all the income earners into consideration.  For example lets say you have a married couple which have a combined income of $175,000 and two grown children making $50,000 each still living at home.  The household income would be $275,000, however they wouldn't be in the 250,000 + tax bracket.  The married couple would pay based on the $175,000 they made, and the children would each pay on the $50,000 they make.  Not sure if that answers your question.

Yup.  Thanks!

So when you say that the top 4-5% of Long Islanders make that amount, you're referring to joint income, right? 

Correct

[cinyc]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

Nobody is stopping Warren Buffet or anyone else who claims that they pay too little in taxes from sending a check payable to the United States Treasury to Washington, D.C.  That they haven't says more about their true politics than anything else.

The top 1 percent have 19% of the income but pay 37% of the total income taxes.  But that's clearly not enough.   We need to tax them more, until they pay 100% of the total income taxes!

And then Atlas shrugged.

[Smash255]

If I am figuring this out correctly, raising the taxes on those making over $250,000, will actually be in the $290,000 or so range in reality.  The 33% bracket will be eliminated, but the bottom portion of that bracket will be thrown into the 28% bracket.

For married couples filing jointly, $200,300 was the cutoff in 08 between the 28% & 33% brackets.  This year that cutoff is $208,850.   Based on that the cutoff would likely be in the $225,000 range by 2011 as it currently stands.  However, under Obama's plan that cutoff would be $250,000 between the 28% & 36% brackets.  So less tax would actually wind up being paid on the stretch of income from about $225,000- $250,000, 5% less than currently.  You would have to get to the $290,000 range or so for the cut in the $225,000- $250,000 to be canceled out by the increase over $250,000.

[TeePee4Prez]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

Nobody is stopping Warren Buffet or anyone else who claims that they pay too little in taxes from sending a check payable to the United States Treasury to Washington, D.C.  That they haven't says more about their true politics than anything else.

The top 1 percent have 19% of the income but pay 37% of the total income taxes.  But that's clearly not enough.   We need to tax them more, until they pay 100% of the total income taxes!

And then Atlas shrugged.

Who in God's name would pay more in taxes then they have to???  NO ONE!  IIRC, Massachusetts has a voluntary tax option and not a person checked yes and it's known as Taxachusetts.

[cinyc]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

Nobody is stopping Warren Buffet or anyone else who claims that they pay too little in taxes from sending a check payable to the United States Treasury to Washington, D.C.  That they haven't says more about their true politics than anything else.

The top 1 percent have 19% of the income but pay 37% of the total income taxes.  But that's clearly not enough.   We need to tax them more, until they pay 100% of the total income taxes!

And then Atlas shrugged.

Who in God's name would pay more in taxes then they have to???  NO ONE!  IIRC, Massachusetts has a voluntary tax option and not a person checked yes and it's known as Taxachusetts.

Anyone who claims that their taxes are too low should put up or shut up.  Absolutely NOTHING is stopping them from paying more to the government.  Nothing.

[opebo]

Anyone who claims that their taxes are too low should put up or shut up.  Absolutely NOTHING is stopping them from paying more to the government.  Nothing.

I shall leave aside the utter idiocy of your position and point out that, simply not having any money prevents the great majority of people from sending any money to anyone.

[Lunar]

She raises a good point about people making say 200K-500K where in NYC isn't much at all.  I've proposed this before- creating a whole new tax bracket for those over a cool million a year.  Most of them voted for Obama knowing they were going to get socked with a tax increase and some, even Warren Buffet, think they pay too little in taxes. 

Nobody is stopping Warren Buffet or anyone else who claims that they pay too little in taxes from sending a check payable to the United States Treasury to Washington, D.C.  That they haven't says more about their true politics than anything else.

While the government may take their money, do they have a visible program for that?

I mean, Buffet is hardly greedy with his money, willing to drop 40 billion here or there for charity etc.

If you were a rich person who hypothetically believed in higher tax brackets [not that I do either], would you pay that amount anyways to the government?  I'm not trying to make an argument about taxes but rather whether his lack of writing large checks to the Treasury proves anything about his character.

[paul718]

Nobody is stopping Warren Buffet or anyone else who claims that they pay too little in taxes from sending a check payable to the United States Treasury to Washington, D.C.  That they haven't says more about their true politics than anything else.

While the government may take their money, do they have a visible program for that?

I mean, Buffet is hardly greedy with his money, willing to drop 40 billion here or there for charity etc.

If you were a rich person who hypothetically believed in higher tax brackets [not that I do either], would you pay that amount anyways to the government?  I'm not trying to make an argument about taxes but rather whether his lack of writing large checks to the Treasury proves anything about his character.

I believe there's a clause in the revenue code that allows for voluntary payment to the federal government.  In fact, I think it might be specifically for paying down the national debt. 

Edit:  http://www.coxwashington.com/reporters/content/reporters/stories/2008/02/09/PUBLIC_DEBT09_COX.html

[Lunar]

I mean, a clause wasn't what I was looking for, but still interesting.  I was thinking of the psychology why someone would be endlessly more interested in giving money to charity than the government, outside of the obvious bureaucratic waste.  I mean, it's pretty easy to see why someone like Buffet would want higher tax rates for himself (even though I'd tend to disagree), but would still prefer to give his extra money to charity than to the government,  I could list the reasons, like knowing where your money is going, but I think they're obv

anyway, the  moral of the story is that I don't think any hypocrisy is involve here.  I can say that my county should be taxed more to support a more robust firefighter department (if I felt the department was woefully inadequate) without being a hypocrite for not giving my extra money to the firefighting department