Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, April 20, 2009

"Obama may call me wealthy, but I thought we were just good old middle class. Our needs are being met, but we don't have a load of cash to cover wants." -- Ellen Parnell, who with her surgeon husband Donald Parnell Jr., earns gross income of $260,000 a year

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

angrydad

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Anybody who thinks earning over 250k is rich, well, you are an idiot.

In NYC, maybe not, but in Tennessee?!
In Tennessee a quarter mil is REALLY nice.

How would you know?

Comparatively speaking, in most of America, it IS "rich".

Of course, choking chickens on your "ranch" for a living must pay something.....

. The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church. Their mortgage, second mortgage and payment on land they bought is nearly $4,000 a month. Other expenses, including their family car payment, insurance and college funds, as well as basics like food, utilities and donations to charities, leave them with about $1,200 left over each month.

Cut back on some of those bills. Get rid of the property. And Jeebus almighty quit giving so much to the frigging. I hope Obama teaches these people a lesson.

Chickenplucker. Finally we agree on something.

I suppose everything is relative. 250k does seem rich to someone making minimum wage. But to the 1%, it is chicken feed (no pun intended).

Two mortgages and a note on a third piece of land is only 4000?
Holy fuck, in NYC 10k wouldn't cover that.

Good ole rocky top...

Boo frigging hoo.

How the hell will they ever afford a new Infinity ever again?

Please consider a gift to these deserving souls, after all $4,807 per week is so little to get by on.

BTW, if they were good Christians they would tithe $1,923 per month.

My heart bleeds.

"My heart bleeds."

We know, lol.
:)

I know I could scrape by but if you think in terms of planning your retirement, funding your own healthcare, car payments, insurance, putting a few kids through college, monthly bills, & God knows, paying taxes, it becomes way less than it sounds.

I'm sure everyone is hating on them & not seeing their point at all because they don't have as much. That said, I'll take it.

It is interesting case, but we cannot go on a case-by-case basis, but rather how most people are doing. Yes, there will be people such as those in this story who are scraping by, but we must ask if they are the exception or the rule? If they are the exception, then this case does not carry any real weight, but, if they are the rule, then the 250K number should be re-examined.

#11
I'm within less than 100k of them but I live in NYC. Even I think they're crybabies. They are just living too close to the limit of their means.

I'm within less than 100k of them but I live in NYC. Even I think they're crybabies. They are just living too close to the limit of their means.

Sure, but they aren't rich.

I'm within less than 100k of them but I live in NYC. Even I think they're crybabies. They are just living too close to the limit of their means.

Furthermore, if you are single, Obama would consider you rich. Would you consider yourself rich if you are (were) single?

wealth is in the eyes of the beholder. take a cut in income and give that portion they want to tax you on to a worthy charity of YOUR choice. one should not bitch about what the government is taking from them if they're not willing to change it. not to worry, the playing field will be leveled before too long and the doctor will be making as much as the janitor.

As a TN native, I can attest 250K is rich and living well for that state.

If I were childless and single?

Hell yes I'd consider myself rich.
Rich enough to do whatever I wanted, that's for sure.
Not everything I could think of, but I don't want to do those things.

"Sure, but they aren't rich."

Bullshit.

A little info on Sevierville, Tennessee:

The median income for a household in the city was $30,623, and the median income for a family was $37,972. Males had a median income of $27,247 versus $19,401 for females. The per capita income for the city was $18,576. About 14.5% of families and 16.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 24.1% of those under age 18 and 17.2% of those age 65 or over.

source

250k???

No, they're not rich.

Comparatively, they're fucking filthy rich.

250k???

No, they're not rich.

Comparatively, they're fucking filthy rich.

Ok, in Sevierville, Tennessee they are rich. Unfortunately for those living outside of Sevierville, Tennessee, this standard is not applied on a village by village basis.

If you make more money than 95 percent of the population of the country, you can be considered rich.

All of this whining is about letting the Bush tax cuts lapse at the end of 2010. Back to the Clinton years, less than the Reagan years.

Boo frakking hoo.

I am very close to this couples salary and in an even worse position.

I earn just over 100K a year and my wife earns right at 100K Now consider this:

I live in the 4th most expensive metropolitan area in the nation after NYC, San Francisco , and LA.

In order for my wife to work I have to pay 300 bucks a WEEK in day care of which I can only claim 5,000 for the YEAR. That doesn't even cover a third.

My wife and I had to suffer for years and scrape by with VERY little of anything while we accumulated over 100K in school loan debt to put ourselves into the position where we can make the kind of money we are making.

Between the two cars we need for both of us to get to work, saving money so my son doesn't have to break his back like my wife and I did with the massive debt for school, saving for retirement, and trying to be moderately comfortable, there is VERY little left over.

Look, I am in no way saying everyone should pity us, we are doing well because of our own hard work and dedication to becoming intelligent and well educated people. We saw where we wanted to be, identified the intermediate steps it would take to be there and accomplished all of the tasks it took. That type of dedication shouldn't be PUNISHED because we went 1 dollar over the cut-off for this miraculous "rich" label.

I understand all too well that President Obama is back to a 250K floor for the tax hikes which we are under, but three weeks before the election in his own campaign ads, HE stated (not anyone else he HIMSELF) stated the floor was to be 200K which would easily swallow us into the fold and crush us under massive new taxes.

Because of this I am keeping a careful eye on the floor he will use for "rich" label.

Now I can hear the crying now: "One of you quit and save yourself the childcare expenses! One of you shouldn't have gone to school!" and blah blah blah. Why should we be punished with a higher tax bracket just because we chose to work hard and pay our own way through?

What is the point of DISCOURAGING productivity?

The funny part is, my wife and I both come from VERY poor families. My wife's father told me once that he has never earned more than 25,000 dollars in a year in his entire life. My father was slightly better off, but not by much. Our parents just instilled hard work and goal setting into usand this crap makes me wonder why.

"Unfortunately for those living outside of Sevierville, Tennessee, this standard is not applied on a village by village basis."

Doesn't matter. In this case, these people are whining about not being rich, when, in fact, they are.

Poor example to base the argument on.

"They are just living too close to the limit of their means"
#13 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Maybe, but there are welfare recipients living WELL above their means buying their WANTS while the tax dollar supports their NEEDS & not a peep.

"Furthermore, if you are single, Obama would consider you rich. Would you consider yourself rich if you are (were) single?"
#15 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Just have a bunch of kids you can't afford. You'll be walking in high cotton!

The rich motherfuckers should shut the hell up or the IRS will use their new torture procedures to make sure they pay a 'little extra' next year!!!

Constitution? We don't need no steenking Constitution!!!!

"...which would easily swallow us into the fold and crush us under massive new taxes."

So...do you actually have a dollar amount to portray these "massive new taxes" you claim you would be subjected to?

Hatebiggot,

Did you get that welfare info from Joe the Welfare Fraud? I know the republicans are the new welfare queens, but do you have to rag on them ALL the time?

Ok I can see how people would think that they are rich... However, if that income dries up then they would be no different than the people living around them... In my personal opinion, rich is not having to work to pay your bills (or to get government assistance to do so either, just to clarify)... They are well off right now and would be up shit creek without a paddle if he lost his job for some reason... and working in the medical profession that can happen faster than anyone could figure.

#22 | Posted by TGNH

Boy that paints the picture doesn't it.

I'll go one better.

If you make say, $13/hr working 40hrs, you are above the limit for any public social services with 2 kids. You gross a little over $2000/mo. You're paying around $500.00/mo for insurance for you & the kids, throw in a moderate contribution to your 401K, you pay out say, $400.00/MO for groceries. Meanwhile, you're shelling out $400.00 month for childcare too. You're down to $700.00 net for all your monthly expenses right off the bat.

The same person can take a job making $11.00/hr at 40hrs or better yet, take the state minimum time at work for eligibility. But say you do 40, you're grossing around $1700/mo or so. You are now eligible for $400 (at least) in food stamps a month, medicaid for the kids & free childcare. After taxes, who clears more & tell me why in the. You've eliminated all that expense by giving up a lousy $320/mo.

I did this little project to prove a point to a former girlfriend who is going the "road less contributing" and asked her where is her fucking pride!

Tell me why in the world people wouldn't take lower paying job or fewer hours for that kind of trade off. Social Services looks at what you make gross, no credit for trying to provide necessary things for your family. No incentive to work for your own insurance or your own food or your own childcare. NONE. Rewarding the least possible effort.

To top it all off, the more kids, the better the payoff & you get to claim them on your taxes to get money back when you don't even pay taxes!

I do not understand it!

So...do you actually have a dollar amount to portray these "massive new taxes" you claim you would be subjected to?

#26 | Posted by Angrydad at 2009-04-20 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Of course I do. Right now I am in the 33% tax bracket. IF...and I stress "IF"... he follows through with his campaign adds for a 200K and above cut off for the 39.6% tax bracket, my taxes go up by 13,860 a year or well over 1000 bucks a MONTH. That is way more than both of my car payments AND the insurance to drive them.

Ridiculous.

That amount of money will mean I have to drastically cut into the money I save for retirement and how much I save for my kids education.

#27 | Posted by axe

Not ragging on people who need it but if we're trying to hold corporations & government to a higher standard, we have to stop acting like the "poor" in this country are victims of more than there own fucking choices. Not always, but a lot, & we need to weed it out. If there's going to be less to go around, wouldn't you rather it go to those who help themselves?

Of course you wouldn't because they may vote differently. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish...... If that doesn't work, force him to fish because we're sick of carrying your lazy ass!

#22
TGNH,
I'm in nyc and just under where you are at income wise. I pay 250 more a month for childcare than you and my wife has almost as much student loan debt as you. I waited until after I was 25 to finish school so I could get financial aid at a state school, when I could have gone to a much better school, because I couldn't imagine taking on 100K in student loans.

You say you don't want anyone to criticizE your choices but I think that you made them thinking about the best case scenario. The best case scenario is usually a fantasy for most. I understand how close my family is to that "rich" mans taxation, but I also understand that the sacrifice I'll be asked to make is small compared to the sacrifice millions of Americans make every day who make a fraction of what we make (welfare queen anecdotes aside. Sorry, hate).

These are not best case scenario times and those of us who are most able are going to have to shoulder a greater portion of the burden to get us out of this than others.

I did contract work and lived in Knoxville TN a few years back. I was only making 30 dollars an hour but still lived pretty good and I paid child support while driving a Lexus and having a nice apartment. What I didn't do was give my money to a church. If they give up the church they can live a much better life.

Anyone that thinks earning $250,000 isn't reasonably well off is insane. When so many make do with a fifth of that amount it is hard to sympathize with these poor folks.

Keith you are right. They can live well off half that. They choose to spend their money unwisely. I'm sure they could cut many many expenses.

Keith you are right. They can live well off half that. They choose to spend their money unwisely. I'm sure they could cut many many expenses.

#35 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-04-20 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

and how, exactly, is this the point.

Anyone can live "comfortably" at any income level provided they adjust what makes them "comfortable."

The point is, folks like me an my wife, worked EXTREMELY hard to get to the point where we make outstanding money so that we could have a bright retirement through judicious savings and provide an opportunity for my kid(s) (only have one now but looking to have more) to go through school without the same financial burdon my wife and I have.

Saying "but other folks are comfortable with less" swings and misses at the fact that many hard working people will be swallowed up and suddenly dramatically punished because they chose to work hard.

What is the point of punishing us for working hard? should I be less productive and take an easier slightly less paying job to save myself the 14K in new taxes I am possibly staring at?

How can you justify that?

A lot of people who work extremely hard never get rich. Those who do are sometimes humbled by their good fortune, others think they had no luck at all.

How can you justify that?

#36 | POSTED BY TGNH

Since I believe in redistribution of wealth I justify it easily. I think it is the responsibility of us who are doing better to help those who aren't so lucky. Anyways though I wonder if these people have an AGI of 250k? My AGI is lower than my gross. My GF makes over 6 figures and she supports socialized medicine because she believes it is the right of every American to receive basic necessities. Any way you look at it you will still be doing ok but you'll be helping many others. Feel good with that knowledge.

A lot of people who work extremely hard never get rich. Those who do are sometimes humbled by their good fortune, others think they had no luck at all.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2009-04-20 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This is true, but it is also true that too many people are blinded by the short term. My wife and I stuck with jobs making less than 30K a year that afforded us the opportunity to go to school. We also put off having children for MANY years to make those sacrifices so that we would end up where we are.

We had to sacrfice and take on a ton of debt but we had a long term focus.

The people that take 40K a year jobs instead of a job for half that much and go to school to prepare themselves for a better future are a victim of their own choices.

as for wealth redistribution. I still pay more in taxes than over 80% of Americans... at what point is it enough? When am I allowed to feel like I contributed enough to others?

Look I am well under the 250K cut off he is talking about and I am happy about that. I am just concerned about his evolving target of who is "rich"

it was 250 then it was 200 then biden said 125... and now it is back to 250.

How can we define "rich" in absolute terms without any regards to their individual circumstances.. especially things like cost of living.

as has been said before. all 250K a years are not equal. location is a very big factor.

"as for wealth redistribution. I still pay more in taxes than over 80% of Americans... at what point is it enough?"

If it was a box game of Monopoly then your point would be valid but since it isn't and considering that without some sort of redistribution we are facing "GAME OVER" scenario then I would think that it will be "enough" when we can start paying down debt and when unemployment numbers are going down.
If we allow the economy to completely deteriorate your "wealth" won't mean much anyway.

How can we define "rich" in absolute terms without any regards to their individual circumstances.. especially things like cost of living.

I see rich as what you get to save after all expenses. Most "rich" people are living paycheck to paycheck like the rest of us. Maybe we should be taxing savings instead of income?

I would just have to say that what amounts to a 3 percent tax "increase" when Bush's tax cut runs out at the end of 2010 is much less a burden for someone making 1/4 million a year than is the heavy burden on most Americans, considering that many of those also work hard, some with 3-4 jobs, and have been losing ground for many years.

I would just have to say that what amounts to a 3 percent tax "increase" when Bush's tax cut runs out at the end of 2010 is much less a burden for someone making 1/4 million a year than is the heavy burden on most Americans, considering that many of those also work hard, some with 3-4 jobs, and have been losing ground for many years.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2009-04-20 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Actually my tax increase would be 6.6%.

I see rich as what you get to save after all expenses. Most "rich" people are living paycheck to paycheck like the rest of us. Maybe we should be taxing savings instead of income?

#42 | POSTED BY KANREI

Kanrei that won't work because it isn't the govt's fault if you buy a ferrari and spend all you make on car payments.

Rich should be on a cost of living analysis. 250k in Marin county is good not great 250k in salina kansas is off the charts great.

"How can we define "rich" in absolute terms without any regards to their individual circumstances.. especially things like cost of living."

That's not an unfair point. Taking into account cost of living, I'd go along with the tax kicking in at 250K in places like Yuma, AZ, but at 500K in places like NY or LA.

We all know that aint ever gonna happen though. Poorer states would never go along.

Actually, if you are not making $250K, you'll be getting a tax cut.

This must be preemptive whining, eh?

If it was a box game of Monopoly then your point would be valid but since it isn't and considering that without some sort of redistribution we are facing "GAME OVER" scenario then I would think that it will be "enough" when we can start paying down debt and when unemployment numbers are going down.
If we allow the economy to completely deteriorate your "wealth" won't mean much anyway.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2009-04-20 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Wait. you are talking about paying down the debt we are about to increase by HOW MUCH?

That makes zippy sense.

I feel like I pay my fair share..and then some towards the debt. I just hope to see some fiscal responsibility. I accumulated debt for long term goals much like the government is doing...except I also trimmed expenses drastically while doing it.. the government is NOT.

This 100 million in savings being pushed right now is a PITTANCE.

Actually, if you are not making $250K, you'll be getting a tax cut.

This must be preemptive whining, eh?

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2009-04-20 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

During his campaign he said $200K a year and above in his own ads. That he has gone back to saying 250K is not making me feel all warm and fuzzy.

TGNH how do you figure you pay your fair share when your SS isn't taxed at 100%. You could always pay a little more to help out.

So, you make $200K?

So, you make $200K?

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2009-04-20 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

see post #22.

yes between my wife and my own salary we are just over it.

"This 100 million in savings being pushed right now is a PITTANCE."

That is true but he "says" they will be cutting much more later. I am skeptical about that too.
However, I, for one, am not really concerned right now with spending. When and if unemployment begins to fall and our manufacturing economy begins to recover then we can look at government spending. Til then I think we need it to keep the economy operating at a reasonable level.

yes between my wife and my own salary we are just over it.

#52 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-04-20 01:51 PM

What if your wife and you filed separate returns then? Each of you alone would fall under the magic number then, right?

TGNH how do you figure you pay your fair share when your SS isn't taxed at 100%. You could always pay a little more to help out.

#50 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-04-20 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Do you mean besides paying far more than over 80% of Americans? By paying a larger portion of income in taxes than over 80% of americans?

You must have meant besides that.

Then you should, despite your hard work, also consider yourself fortunate.

What if your wife and you filed separate returns then? Each of you alone would fall under the magic number then, right?

#54 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-04-20 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No, becuase it is 200 per family, 100 per individual from what I have read. filing seperately wouldn;t save me and bring along other tax burdens as well.

What if your wife and you filed separate returns then? Each of you alone would fall under the magic number then, right?
#54 | Posted by kanrei

You get a tax penalty for doing that.

You must have meant besides that.

#55 | POSTED BY TGNH

If you were taxed on the full amount of your income for SS I would be satisfied.

Then you should, despite your hard work, also consider yourself fortunate.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2009-04-20 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I do. VERY much so. However, I don't feel like strapping us with near 14K in new taxes is either fair or necessary.

D'oh!

I do. VERY much so. However, I don't feel like strapping us with near 14K in new taxes is either fair or necessary.

#60 | POSTED BY TGNH

It doesn't make you feel good to know that the poor warehouse worker or gardener will get to take hypertension medicine or get that painful heel spur removed?

Did you think that you getting those tax cuts initially when others did not was fair or necessary?

If you were taxed on the full amount of your income for SS I would be satisfied.
#59 | Posted by rastaninja

Isn't that levied individually? According to TGNH's own testimony on his and his wife's income, very little of his income isn't taxed for SS.

yes it is. I think anything over 90k isn't taxed so if they tax his full 100k I'll be satisfied.

It doesn't make you feel good to know that the poor warehouse worker or gardener will get to take hypertension medicine or get that painful heel spur removed?
#62 | Posted by rastaninja

It does me. A healthier worker is a more productive worker. That's good for America.

Plus, heel spurs bite.

Isn't that levied individually? According to TGNH's own testimony on his and his wife's income, very little of his income isn't taxed for SS.

#64 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-04-20 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Exactly. My wife fully funds hers, I am not fully funded by around 8K a year. So basically 6.2% of 8K or $496 bucks a year.

I will GLADLY pay that to make sure I don;t get hit wuth 14K.

es it is. I think anything over 90k isn't taxed so if they tax his full 100k I'll be satisfied.

#65 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-04-20 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Actually anything over 102K isn't taxed.

The cut off point as of 2006 is 94,200.

Did you think that you getting those tax cuts initially when others did not was fair or necessary?

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2009-04-20 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

actually I never really recived it. I have moved up rapidly, but I missed my taxes actually going down since we were making a lot less at the time.

I know it is the same thing, but I think "getting a tax cut" usually involves seeing a reduction in tax debt. My income has gone up quite a bit every year and so has the amount I send off to the fed... never really saw my tax bill go down.

The cut off point as of 2006 is 94,200.

#69 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-04-20 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

That was true in 2006. for 2008 tax year it was 102K

for 2009 it is 106,800.

"The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) (codified in the Internal Revenue Code) imposes a Social Security withholding tax equal to 6.20% of the gross wage amount, up to but not exceeding the Social Security Wage Base ($97,500 for 2007; $102,000 for 2008; and $106,800 for 2009). The same 6.20% tax is imposed on employers. For each calendar year for which the worker is assessed the FICA contribution, the SSA credits those wages as that year's covered wages. The income cutoff is adjusted yearly for inflation and other factors."

this quote is from wiki so I know it is suspect... but I will find a more reputable source when I get a minute.

I don't make anywhere close to that much, so I never really paid attention to the number.

OK

Did you think that other well-off taxpayers getting those tax cuts initially when other not-so-well-off taxpayers did not was fair or necessary?

Did you think that other well-off taxpayers getting those tax cuts initially when other not-so-well-off taxpayers did not was fair or necessary?

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2009-04-20 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Considering that I am a flat tax proponent? yes I was. I think everyone making over 40K a year (adjusted for the cost of living based on what the fed uses to pay it's own employees) should pay 20% of their income to the fed. NO deductions of ANY kind and no differentiation for SOURCE of income.

The "rich" would still be shouldering the lion share of the tax burden, and it would be a fair and equitable disposition for all.

"I think anything over 90k isn't taxed so if they tax his full 100k I'll be satisfied."

Be satisfied: the limit for 2008 was $102,000. TGNH and his wife are in the unfortunate group of Americans who pay the largest percentage of their overall income in taxes.

"NO deductions of ANY kind and no differentiation for SOURCE of income."

You've just put every small business owner out of business.

Be satisfied: the limit for 2008 was $102,000. TGNH and his wife are in the unfortunate group of Americans who pay the largest percentage of their overall income in taxes.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-04-20 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No wonder I feel so crushed by the weight of taxes.

yikes.

It should be a straight 100% not so much for TGNH but those who make way over that. I think seniors and children need our help the most. I worry my pension will go bust and I only have SS to rely on and what savings I have accumulated. I don't want to live in squalor nor see anybody else forced into it. If I am required to pay more Taxes so be it. I am lucky to be doing ok and don't mind seeing others get some things like healthcare and decent housing.

What is the point of punishing us for working hard? should I be less productive and take an easier slightly less paying job to save myself the 14K in new taxes I am possibly staring at?

How can you justify that?

#36 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-04-20 01:16 PM | Reply |

Thats exactly what you should do. Take a lower paying job. Make room for all the people who aren't going to whine they're way to the top.

Make room for those who are going to see increase taxes as nothing more than a reason to make even more money.

"Thats exactly what you should do. Take a lower paying job. Make room for all the people who aren't going to whine they're way to the top.

Make room for those who are going to see increase taxes as nothing more than a reason to make even more money.

#80 | Posted by KnightHawk"

What he said.

Who is whining? I am jusrt pointint out I already pay FAR more than enough in taxes and paying even more is ridiculous and stupid.

As has been pointed out, I pay the highest portion of my income in taxes. And then to learn I may get hit with over 1000 bucks a month MORE with nio increase in my income is a painful pill to swallow.

I suppose you would be all smiles and partying like a rock star to learn you may soon have an additoonal burden that is higher than both cars and the insurance to drive them, without 1 ounce of benefit?

What is the point of punishing us for working hard? should I be less productive and take an easier slightly less paying job to save myself the 14K in new taxes?

The sentiment of some on the left is that you aren't working hard if you are making money. You, naturally, believe that if you are making more money this it is because you work really hard or you posess a special skill (which you worked hard to obtain). Many people (including some posters here) do not accept that. If you are making money then you must be screwing somebody if you don't pay a significant amount in taxes.

Eberly not true at all. I just believe we all have a social responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Eberly not true at all.

Somebody must think I was directly referring to him because he immediately responds in defense and pretends to speak for all on the left.

LOL

I hope I do speak for the left in my belief that helping those less fortunate is a core principal of the left.

Eberly not true at all. I just believe we all have a social responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

#84 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-04-20 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

And I agree. But I would rather pay little less in taxes and give a little more to charity.

The government has, in general, a far lower efficiency rating for getting dollars to those that need it then charities or Church programs.

I am no Bible thumper, but I do go to Church and I do donate a small amount to it.

I woul dmuch rather give money to the homeless shelter run by my church or money to hospital charities that help those in need pay medical bills then watch it get chewed up by the beauracracy machine.

I am not a christian but also donate to a xtian charity for the sole reason they do a good job of helping those in need. I however think Govt should learn to operate more efficient not scrap the idea of govt assisting the needy.

I hope I do speak for the left in my belief that helping those less fortunate is a core principal of the left.

I didn't say anything about "helping those less fortunate". I feel we have a duty to do that as well and that means that some of it has to come through govt services rather than just private charity. I was referring to the sentiment towards people who earn a good living around here.

Eberly rich people create jobs. I think it's great if you become rich by ingenuity and hard work. I want to be rich one day. I probably won't be but I aspire to be. I just don't think paying an extra couple of percent in Taxes is going to ruin them. If I am rich I won't bitch about helping my fellow man. I'll pay my taxes and increase my donation percentage.

TGHN - you said if Obama calls >200k rich, that your taxes go from 33% to 39.6 - up 6.6% and that it works out to over a grand a month...

correct me if I am wrong, I thought that the higher tax bracket only applies to income OVER the 200k. In that sense, even if you earned $250k, and the cutoff was $200k, the extra tax would be less than $300 a month...

Rasta. I find it difficult to believe you wouldn;t be upset by seeing your income not go up by 1 dollar, but watch yout taxes go up by 14,000 bucks overnight.

It is a BITTER pill to swallow. Where do you propose I cut back? Now I have to adjust my contributions to retirement or my sons education fund?

Suddenly for no apprarent reason then some arbitrary "rich" label, I suddenly have to drastically adjust everything about my way of life.

14k would be tough I agree

More confusion as to income versus wealth. I made six figures for the first time just three years ago. After 10 years of it, I would be rich. But how long have they been pulling down $250,000? Do they have big college loans? How about kids in college? At $20,000 per year for a state college, money can zip right through your fingers, considering these folks are clearing $170k or so after taxes.

Just sayin'. It's better to have a net worth of $10 million and make $80,000 a year, than to have a net worth of zero and make $250,000. And there are a lot more of the latter than the former.

Anybody who thinks earning over 250k is rich, well, you are an idiot.

~Chickenchoker

If you don't understand the reality of the declining standard of living in US and wot the median earning of an average American family is then yer an even bigger idiot than Spud originally thought.

And Spud thought you were a fucking moron pretty much from the get-go.

The Average American works harder and longer and makes less money than almost any other citizen of the industrialised west and yet you still have submoronic whackjobs like Chickenchoker continually trying to be apologists fer greed all in the name of defending the US from the imagined bogeyman of socialism.

Part deliberately inculcated propaganda, part ignorance, part natural stupidity but all ridiculous.

Be Well.

TGHN - you said if Obama calls >200k rich, that your taxes go from 33% to 39.6 - up 6.6% and that it works out to over a grand a month...

correct me if I am wrong, I thought that the higher tax bracket only applies to income OVER the 200k. In that sense, even if you earned $250k, and the cutoff was $200k, the extra tax would be less than $300 a month...

#91 | Posted by JimmiG at 2009-04-20 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Absolutely incorrect. The tax code doesn;t tax different portions of your income at different rates.

If you make enough to be in the bracket ALL of your income is taxed at that rate.

In other words, if I were to make 205K which is about what I make now and the cut off is 200K to be considered rich, if I made 199,999 I would pay nearly 14K LESS in taxes. 5K less in income and 14K less in taxes. 9 Grand difference to be LESS productive.

ouch.

Just sayin'. It's better to have a net worth of $10 million and make $80,000 a year, than to have a net worth of zero and make $250,000. And there are a lot more of the latter than the former.

#94 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-04-20 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

LOL.. yep. See #22 for my situation.

Absolutely incorrect. The tax code doesn;t tax different portions of your income at different rates.

#96 | Posted by TGNH

You should do some research.

Because you are wrong.

"Absolutely incorrect. The tax code doesn;t tax different portions of your income at different rates.
If you make enough to be in the bracket ALL of your income is taxed at that rate."

Whoa, whoa, whoa...absolutely incorrect. The tax code DOES tax different portions of your income at different rates. If you make enough to be in the bracket ONLY THE AMOUNT ABOVE THE CUTOFF of your income is taxed at that rate.

taxes.about.com

Below are the marginal tax rates for 2008. Tax rates progressively increase as income increases. The tax rates apply only to the income in each tax bracket range. Also, the tax rates apply only to taxable income. Various adjustments and deductions, including the standard deduction and personal exemptions, all lower your taxable income. Taxable income is almost always less than your total income.
Capital gains are may taxed at different tax rates. Capital gains tax rates are calculated separately.

Note: These tax rate schedules are provided for tax planning purposes. To compute your actual income tax, please see the 2008 instructions for Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ as appropriate.

Single Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule X)
10% on income between $0 and $8,025

15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50

25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25

28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25

33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25

35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

I thought that the higher tax bracket only applies to income OVER the 200k. In that sense, even if you earned $250k, and the cutoff was $200k, the extra tax would be less than $300 a month...

#91 | Posted by JimmiG at 2009-04-20 03:14 PM | Reply

You are correct. But don't let spoil a perfectly fine right wing rant.

Hmm.. I was looking on this table, the first one I came across and it says nothing about that. Got a link?

www.bargaineering.com

TGNH,

The link you provided is the same thing already posted by 726. It is a progressive tax bracket.

As RIR stated, you can not say someone is 'rich' based on 1 year of a W2, rich is net worth, not net income for a year. I fall into the >$250/year camp and I think I pay far more than I should. I live in California and bought a house in the last 5 years which means I also carry far too much of the load when it comes to state finances due to Prop 13.

I think SS should be capped at $50K in income - I never expect to see dime #1 when I retire and we, as a nation, need to put SS back to being a safety net vs. a retirement savings plan. I would also gladly opt out of all SS income when I retire due to means testing than to continue paying into the system.

Now, as to a $250K/year cut off being rich - that is hardly the case and as mentioned above, taxing so aggressively reduces productivity rather than rewarding it. I think most of the poor people that continue to vote for higher taxes do so because they think they will finally get Donald Trump to pay his 'fair share' when they have no idea how truly rich people (inherited wealth, etc) earn their money and pay their taxes.

Here is my plan:
1.) Eliminate illegal imigration by posting troops on the border and jailing employers
2.) Drug test all government aid recipients and force them to do 8 hours/day of work to receive any government aid
3.) Stop 100% of foreign aid until the US is no longer in debt
---> this will drastically reduce spending
4.) Make the death tax real - $3M exemption and then a straigh 60% with no exemptions/loopholes. Fair value all assets and tax at 60%.

And for the love of god, get rid of Prop 13 and the mandatory eduction spending for the State of California.

I think most of the poor people that continue to vote for higher taxes do so because they think they will finally get Donald Trump to pay his 'fair share' when they have no idea how truly rich people (inherited wealth, etc) earn their money and pay their taxes.

Hell, most of the middle class do it for the same reasons....ignorance.

2.) Drug test all government aid recipients and force them to do 8 hours/day of work to receive any government aid

That shouldn't cost anything.

I live in California and bought a house in the last 5 years...

I would seem as if the folks who live in the highest cost of living areas of the country are the one's who are feeling the pinch of taxes the most. Property taxes, state/local income taxes are rough in those areas (I assume).

Social Security becomes a huge issue because of those areas...my mom who lives in a relatively cheap cost of living area can live off her social security for the most part. No way could she do that if she lived in California or New England.

2.) Drug test all government aid recipients and force them to do 8 hours/day of work to receive any government aid

That shouldn't cost anything.

The cost will be more than offset when their drug adled brains give them the choice of getting of drugs and getting a job and/or losing benefits. Either way, it is a win/win and will save the government tons of money. Not to mention the follow on effect of having the children of these lowlives grow up in an environment where mom/dad works every day vs. sitting around smoking pot and watching TV. These kids will be much less likely wind up in jail themselves. Lastly, by getting these lowlives to work, we could cut the number of police patrolling the neighborhoods as front porches would be clear for once. What a novel concept - encourage people to get of drugs and get a job....why would anybody be opposed to that?

What a novel concept - encourage people to get of drugs and get a job....why would anybody be opposed to that?

Actually the powers that be in DC would prefer it to stay just like it is. These problems allow both sides to point fingers at each other for the results of each other's "programs" or the lack of "programs".

pretty sick game we play when so many children's lives and well being are at stake.

"Ms. Parnell says the couple's gross income last year was about $260,000. Taxes, premiums for medical care and deductions for Social Security and their 401(k) contributions cut the gross to about $12,000 per month. The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church. Their mortgage, second mortgage and payment on land they bought is nearly $4,000 a month. Other expenses, including their family car payment, insurance and college funds, as well as basics like food, utilities and donations to charities, leave them with about $1,200 left over each month."

If there gross income is $260K then even if they had 0 deductions they end up paying 3% more on $10K of their earnings. That is about 1/10 of 1% of their income. Of course after you calculate mortgage deductions, charitable gifts, 401K contributions, educational expenses and other deductions these people won't be paying a penny more under Obama's proposed tax plan.

My favorite statement from the article:

Mr. Duran said he and his wife earn about $400,000 annually, but "I'm barely getting by."

#102 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-04-20 03:46 PM

Hmmm...someone seems to have shut right up when they realized they had no idea about tax brackets. You'd think with all that education and a reasonably good income, he could have bought a clue.

If there gross income is $260K then even if they had 0 deductions they end up paying 3% more on $10K of their earnings. That is about 1/10 of 1% of their income. Of course after you calculate mortgage deductions, charitable gifts, 401K contributions, educational expenses and other deductions these people won't be paying a penny more under Obama's proposed tax plan.

#110 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce
* * * *

Nope! Doesn't work that way. Obama's $250k isn't on taxable income, but on gross.

Thanks for playing! Keep hope alive!

250K is not rich?

Well, why not compare that to the average american and I kind of think they would say.........that's rich.

People take life times loans to buy their house on 250K while someone else making that in one year seems to think it is not rich........perspective is a little messed up.

Well, put it this way. Suppose you have an average family of libtards who bring in $75,000 a year. Then one day Ed McMahon shows up at their house with a check for $175,000. That places their income for the year at $250. Are they going to say, "whoo whoo! We're rich!" Or is it more likely they'll say, well, let's see. We'll clear about $100,000 of this money after taxes, which we can use to pay off our cars, our credit cards, a good chunk of our mortgage, and put a little toward Junior Libtard's college fund for Lesbian and Womyn's Studies.

As I said. It all depends on how long they've been making $250,000, and how good they've been with THAT money.

First of all, this article is not being honest about the tax rate a family who earns $250K a year is going to pay. If a family like the Parnells earns $260K per year and has a mortgage and kids and other regular deductions, they are not paying the $250K + tax rate on even one penny of their earnings. They'd probably have to earn over $300K in order for their NET income to go over $250K

Second of all, these morons are giving $1,300 per month to a church so they really have no right to complain about anything.

$250,000 a year puts this family in the top 1.5 percent of all income earners in the U.S. How can an income higher than 98.5 percent of all Americans make you "middle" class? Doesn't that completely hose the meaning of the word middle?

If I was bringing home $20,000 a month in gross income, I'd consider myself rich. Regardless of how much money I had left over after college funds, vacation beach trips, church tithes and the costs of extra property I own.

These people GIVE AWAY $1300/month? Idiots? by my calculations they have $2500/month of FU income. That's $30K per year. $30K a year cleared AFTER all the payments and expenses. Someone go crack a bat over their heads.

Wah.

Don't go wailing Unkle. These cats have their nose in the air so they can only see the rich and famous and that's why they feel deprived and poor.

Well, they are psychologically.

$250,000 a year puts this family in the top 1.5 percent of all income earners in the U.S. How can an income higher than 98.5 percent of all Americans make you "middle" class? Doesn't that completely hose the meaning of the word middle?

You may have a point.

"Nope! Doesn't work that way. Obama's $250k isn't on taxable income, but on gross."

Care to provide some info supporting that claim?

Obama's plan is to restore the top 2 brackets to Clinton-era levels and would adjust personal exemptions and itemized deduction to ensure that the tax increase does not touch apply to the first $250K for a married couple.
www.barackobama.com

Nothing there about eliminating deductions for couples in the top bracket.

I dunno seeing $250,000 is 10 times my best the last 10 years and 6 times my best years ever (inflation adjusted) I'll need somebody to give me that kinda of dinero for at least 5 years so I can decide if it's a hardship.

San Jose, Calif., Mayor Chuck Reed calls a family living in Silicon Valley earning $250,000 "upper working class." That is about what two engineers working at a technology firm can expect to make, but "a family earning $250,000 a year can't buy a home in Silicon Valley," he said.

James Duran owns a human-resources company in Silicon Valley and is president of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in California. He supported Mr. Obama, but is worried about the tax proposals. He has laid off some employees in recent months and has been wondering how he can fund an extension of those workers' health-care benefits.

Mr. Duran said he and his wife earn about $400,000 annually, but "I'm barely getting by." They have high property and state taxes, as well as college tuition and savings to cover. "I'm an Obama man, but this side of him is a difficult pill for me," he said.
* * * *

Come on, Duran! Quit being a pussy! This is what we all voted for!

Headline could have just as easily read, "San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, Democrat, calls $250,000 a year "upper working class"".

AngryDad must be a libtard.

I dunno seeing $250,000 is 10 times my best the last 10 years and 6 times my best years ever (inflation adjusted) I'll need somebody to give me that kinda of dinero for at least 5 years so I can decide if it's a hardship.

That's the saddest thing I've read all day.

And no, I'm not giving you any money.

Second of all, these morons are giving $1,300 per month to a church so they really have no right to complain about anything.

#116 | Posted by Sully

The government is slowly replacing the role of the church. Used to be that if you fell on tough times, you relied on the church to help you out. Now, you have to rely on the government.

Frankly, I prefer the church!

$250k is definitely NOT rich! Let's not count pesky little things like state and federal taxes and withholdings, property taxes, sales taxes and the general high costs of living from mortgages to car payments to student loan costs.

You are only rich when you have enough money that your money works for you!

For every three dollars I make, the government takes one(and I owe money come April). I don't make anything near 250 K, but I can understand why people making 250 K plus feel like they're being raped by taxes. Anybody who calls an individual person making over 250 K per year "rich" should simply aim higher. It's your life, do something with it.

In reply to post #29.

First of all, the article states the proposal would raise the 33% bracket to 36%, NOT 39.6%.

Secondly, while you and your wife earn a combined $200,000 that is BEFORE deductions. What was your 2008 AGI, what was your effective tax rate after deductions? I am sure that your AGI was no where near the $200,000 threshold that you mentioned. If it was then you need to hire a tax accountant and use your deductions to lower your AGI.

What's ridiculous is that you either have no clue what your taxable income was or you're pretending to be in the $200,000 bracket when you know you aren't. So which is it?

These people need to be provident and afford insurance and then provide for a retirement income. They are in the gray area where they don't qualify for many discounts, say for college tuition, which for most colleges nowadays would require some $60,000 per year for tuition, books, housing, and a car, minimum necessities of living. With a three kids in college, it's a strain for people in that range.


""I'm not complaining, but the reality is Obama may call me wealthy, but I thought we were just good old middle class," says Ms. Parnell. "Our needs are being met, but we don't have a load of cash to cover wants.""

Yes, you are complaining.....and you're hardly 'middle class'.

Middle Class means you fall somewhere into the middle of the nations income spectrum. These people are in the top 2% of earners. Like I said, NOT middle class. Face it, they simply spend too much.

My taxes are going up under Obama and I couldn't care less. My taxes might go up 3%, big whoop. I guess I'll just have to increase my income by 4%. Problem solved.

I couldnt agree with you more. My parents, who were immigrants, came with nothing. One eventually became a high school teacher, the other a nurse. They both worked hard, instilled that same work ethic in me and my sister. They supported us through school, allowed us to study and find good jobs. We work hard, earn very good salaries, and will work to ensure that our parents and children are taken care of. But for some reason, that is a bad thing. It seems that we should be punished (taxed) for working hard, living within in our means, and taking care of parents. This is a joke.

DCStressfree

You receive the best the country has to offer--you live in the best of places---you should pay the highest of taxes.

I doubt you "work hard" if you make more than 250,000 a year. Do you work in a coal mine? No--so STFU about how "hard" you work. You have it easy, and 99.9% of the world population would trade places with your whiny ass, and never bitch about paying taxes to the country that allowed such luxury and freedom.

Buffalo Bob: Good to know that "working hard" is limited to the blue collar worker or the poor. Also good to know that one cannot start out poor and work their way to better their lives. And its good to know that you believe that the path to earning a better salary is fair and equal for all and that no one is subjected to racism, poor treatment, and abuse just so they can earn the same $$$ as others. You are right, I shouldnt feel proud of what we've done to get where we are. I shouldnt feel that over the years, we made smart financial decisions, lived within our means (no fancy cars, no fancy homes, no overprice electronic equipment, didnt go out to eat), so that we ensure that our future is secured. Yeah, you are right, we didnt work hard to get where we are today. Silly me thinking that we earned it.

DCStressfree

I bet you never broke a sweat. Making investments is not "working hard". You are fortunate to have the capability and opportunity to have enough diposable income to invest.

Again--you don't "work hard" your post proves it. You mainly sit on your ass and collect money.

Quit whining--pay your taxes, and live your life of luxury while other are hungry and WORKING to pay their bills while you sit by the pool and tell others how hard your work is.

Lets see how this goes. The earn 260,000 per year. They pay 36% in income taxes. Lets also not forget that they social security and medicare. When they get through paying taxes I suppose they take home roughly about 150,000-160,000.

I didn't even include that Tennessee has a 9% sales tax. Then there are all the other taxes that democrats get you with like, property tax, gas tax, car tags, etc. Before you know you don't pass go or collect $200 dollars.

I also wonder since he is a surgeon does he have college loans to pay off.

In the end they really are not that well off. Democrats have seen to that.

Oh no! BBob you have figured me out. You have shamed me back to reality. I am a fraud. Since I really dont work hard, dont pay taxes, and hang out at the pool all day, I should call BHO and ask for the final Cabinet seat. Or at the very least, run for office and become the Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader (or even Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee). At least they will understand where I am going through. They dont pay taxes and are also useless.

DCStessfree

Glad to see you agree that you are useless. We have found common ground.

The cost will be more than offset when their drug adled brains give them the choice of getting of drugs and getting a job and/or losing benefits. Either way, it is a win/win and will save the government tons of money.

#108 | Posted by Real_Story

Really?

You sure? Do you even know what % of the budget goes to welfare?

When you factor in a bureacracy to monitor the drug tests, office space and benefits for them. Then tools/offices/equipment for the recipients to do actual work along with training and supervision I would hazard it would be break even at best.

But it is a feel good talking point forcing that Cadillac Welfare Queen to go to work.

My parents, who were immigrants,

This is a joke.

#133 | Posted by dcstressfree at 2009-04-21 03:53 AM

If you feel that you are overburned with paying taxes here in the United States, go back to where your family immigrated from.

The probability is that your family immigrated here because there was no opportunity in your country. Opportunity that is created by a stable economy that is created by a strong regulating enviroment. Someone has to pay for it.

The problem is that the right feels that they should benefit from the conditions but should not have to pay for it.

Well my friends, war for oil is not cheap. You can try to shift the tax burden onto the lower classes but you just end up with major recessions as the consumer in the consumer economy stops consuming.

I love the "go back to your country" argument whenever an immigrant disagrees with the "man." By "man", Im talking about the "true Americans" on this thread. I assume that 726 and BBob are direct descendants of the founders of the US which entitles them to tell people to go back from where they came from whenever they question tax increases.

Let me ask you this - my family has always paid its taxes, never taken a dime of welfare, and have acted as good citizens (no criminal record other than a speeding offense or two). Does that make us any less "American" than the Cabinet members or politicians who choose not to pay taxes and pay their "help" less than min. wage? Because I question raising taxes by this Administration, Im now all of sudden not American? I need to go back to my country because I think that taxpayer money is being wasted on dumb earmarks and bad projects? That is un-American? I go back to my previous comment, what a joke.

I love the "go back to your country" argument...

The ramifications of such an option are humorous as well. Part of me would have to go back to Germany, part to England, part to Scotland, part to Ireland, and part to France. But 1/16 of me would get to stay here since my grandmother is 1/4 Kiowa Indian.

I assume that 726 and BBob are direct descendants of the founders of the US which entitles them to tell people to go back from where they came from whenever they question tax increases.

Let me ask you this - my family has always paid its taxes, never taken a dime of welfare, and have acted as good citizens (no criminal record other than a speeding offense or two). Does that make us any less "American" than the Cabinet members or politicians who choose not to pay taxes and pay their "help" less than min. wage? Because I question raising taxes by this Administration, Im now all of sudden not American? I need to go back to my country because I think that taxpayer money is being wasted on dumb earmarks and bad projects? That is un-American? I go back to my previous comment, what a joke.

#142 | Posted by dcstressfree

So you're arguement is that because Geitner was a tax evader it gives you license to not pay yours?

But 1/16 of me would get to stay here since my grandmother is 1/4 Kiowa Indian.

#143 | Posted by goatman a

Ever think of opening a Casino?

Obama's tax rate for the rich is the same as it was under Reagan. I don't recall Reagan being derided as a socialist and wealth redistributionist back then.

"I love the "go back to your country" argument..."

That wasn't his argument, you ignorant fuck. His argument was in the rest of the post, which you completely and totally failed to address.

Ever think of opening a Casino?

The odds are against it

Jeebus almighty quit giving so much to the frigging. I hope Obama teaches these people a lesson.

#5 | Posted by rastaninja

This is the feeling of the left. If you make the money you are not allowed to decide what to do with it. The government will decide where to spend your money that you make. But if you are lazy and make bad decisions then the government will not get involved with how you spend others money. THey now you need it for important shit like big screen tvs and iphones bills. They will have others cover your healthcare costs, food, childcare and other items.

This is not the type of government most wanted in this country but its the govenrment that the lowest level of humans want and today they represent 50& of the voting population.

Wealth is a long list of personal choices in this country. Poverty is the same.

Yes, yes we all know that all the people living the high on the hog welfare life are just lazy they just don't want to work. Good Christians are industrious and never fall on hard times.

Wealth is a long list of personal choices in this country. Poverty is the same.

You have a strange definition for the word "choice." If people had a choice whether to be rich or poor, who would choose poverty?

You have a strange definition for the word "choice."

People choose to abuse drugs/alcohol, engage in sexual relations outside of marriage with someone they have no intention of raising children with, repeating the previous poor choice over and over..etc....

These poor choices lead to poverty. It isn't a matter of someone choosing to be poor. If we went around and gave every "poor" person a truckload of money and tell them to stop being poor it wouldn't help.

personal choices are very significant when it comes to identifying causes of poverty.

TGNH,

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but in regards to the tax increase you're worried about, won't it only apply to your income above the cut off? So if you're making $260k a year, the higher rate will only apply to the $10k above the cut off a not the whole thing?

Other wise, the person making 249k might take home more than the person make 251k.

In other words, if Obama for whatever reasons does make the cutoff 200k and you're right at the mark you won't really see much of a difference at all.

People choose to abuse drugs/alcohol, engage in sexual relations outside of marriage with someone they have no intention of raising children with, repeating the previous poor choice over and over..etc....

These poor choices lead to poverty. It isn't a matter of someone choosing to be poor. If we went around and gave every "poor" person a truckload of money and tell them to stop being poor it wouldn't help.

personal choices are very significant when it comes to identifying causes of poverty.

#152 | Posted by eberly at 2009-04-21 11:00 AM | Reply |

Only a fucking retard would have needed an explanation.
Yes, I'm talking about you, Rogers.

I doubt you "work hard" if you make more than 250,000 a year. Do you work in a coal mine? No--so STFU about how "hard" you work. You have it easy, and 99.9% of the world population would trade places with your whiny ass, and never bitch about paying taxes to the country that allowed such luxury and freedom.

#134 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Like I said, there are some who post here who don't accept that someone who makes a good living works hard.

I don't think this applies to very many people but buffalocockintheass is certainly one of them.

Rcade,

Most do choose between rich and poor but its not a single choice. It's made up of many small choices we each make along the way... getting up to go to school, doing your homework, saving small amounts of money, building good credit, working hard at your job, looking to enhance your postion at work even if it means sacrifice in your personal life. We all have some choices in life that has some effect on our incomes. If we didnt would it would be called the Cast system. THe comment you make is one of a simpleton and I know you work hard to keep the site up and running I find it hard to believe you would frame choices in such a way. Be honest with yourself and admitt that life made up of many small choices. The difference between rich and poor is not waiting to win the lottery.

If graduated from college I'm sure you saw this in many others that dropped out. It wasn't because the didnt have the smarts or money it was the poor choices they made along the way.

These people are only one example. $250,000 does not make you a rich person. It makes it pretty easy for you to get by and have a few nice things. The point here is that when these taxes kick in there are going to be A LOT of small businesses that feel the pinch. Small business is what makes this economy tick and I think it is foolish to penalize it with higher taxes.

Here's the real deal. Obama wants people to believe that if you make 250,000 a year you are rich. What you are is middle class, but he doesn't want America thinking that he's taxing the middle class and small business owners.

Where you live in this country can make a huge difference as to whether or not $250K is rich. In one of the 20 most populated or expensive regions you are not nearly as well off compared to say, for instance, Wichita, KS where $250K is very good. You can live in a great home, send kids to the best schools, belong to a country club and still save 20% of your income annually.

I didn't choose to be born white and American in a middle-class family that valued secondary education. Those were all advantages that made it significantly easier for me to achieve a decent living.

Could I have made choices that ended up with me being poor? Sure. Did I work hard and make some good choices? Yep. And poor people can work hard and make sacrifices and become rich.

That doesn't mean it's all a choice, though. Poor people often live in circumstances that make it difficult to get out. And they raise their kids in places where jobs are scarce, the environment is less healthy and schools are terrible. We should spend more time trying to help the kids in those circumstances better themselves, and less stigmatizing the poor.

Poor people often live in circumstances that make it difficult to get out. We should spend more time trying to help the kids in those circumstances better themselves, and less stigmatizing the poor.

#159 | Posted by rcade at 2009-04-21 11:34 AM

I dont deny that it is more difficult for some than others. Life is not fair and we do provide many incentives to help the ones with the most difficult circumstances get out. But it is still mostly a choice if they use or abuse the help we provided and how hard they try. We dont stigmatize the ones that want to get out we highlight them and stigmatize the ones that dont make good choices with the help we provide.

Just as we must not stimatize being rich for being rich but highlight the ones that work hard to achieve it. Thats what a free enterprise society is all about. It must not turn into a welfare state for the benefit of those that choose poorly

I didn't choose to be born white and American in a middle-class family that valued secondary education.

The cycle of poverty starts with people being born into it. We have a responsibility (IMO) to care for these kids but we have to stop the cycle somehow without hurting the children. Not an easy task.

But understand that these kids will eventually start making "choices". These choices will lead to the consequences mentioned earlier.

"What you are is middle class..."

#157 | Posted by everlong

And just how th' fuck do you come to that conclusion?

250K puts one in the top 2%!

One who makes more money than 98% of the people in this country is not middle class!

Do you have any fucking clue what 'middle' means?

Eberly and WIhunter and 101

Just wondering, did I choose to get a disabling disease at age 29 that cost me 5k a year in medical expenses and cost me about 15k a year in income?

You can say all you want about choice making people poor but to say luck has nothing to do with it is bull crap.

Just to save you some typing I put the age I got MS in there because I am tired of all the you should have had savings you should have had better insurance you should have planed like you were 40 and getting ready for retirement not a very healthy 29. How many 29 year olds working full time and trying to start their own business in their spare time have serious retirement savings?

Tao,

Never said it was only choice. The choice I spoke of was personal sacrifice vs personal immmediate pleasure that we see as the norm in our current society. At 29 getting MS is not the norm. I wish we would provide more for your situation and a lot less for the false victim card played by many. You my friend are not a false victim of circumstance and I wish you well and am willing to give to the charity of my choice to provide a better life for you.

If you can't live the good life on $250K a year in Tenne-friggin-see, you are a mongoloid.

FACT!

All the tax arguments aside, I don't understand how a person who comfortably supports a family of five (granted, they think their house is too small), owns a beach house that they visit yearly, covers expenses AND savings, and STILL has $1200 leftover every month considers himself middle class. Maybe it's a difference in expectations. I consider myself middle class, I don't make any outlandish expenditures, and at this point, due to mortgage and school fees (currently attending grad school and working full time), plus school loans, am lucky to have $100 in expendable income every month. I'm not complaining, mind you. I can see benefits coming down the line after finishing the masters, etc. But $260K is middle class? Give me a break.

And Johnson...$60K/yr for college is ridiculous. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's certainly not average.

In other words, if Obama for whatever reasons does make the cutoff 200k and you're right at the mark you won't really see much of a difference at all.

#153 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-21 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Actually you would be wrong.

I was completely wrong and I admit that in my inital calculations. I was operating under eroneous assumptions, and snarkiness aside, I am glad for the edification.

That being said, Allowing the tax cuts to expire would increase my tax bill from 54,902 to 63,956.

I work 50 hours a week and so does my wife. Neither of us are investment bankers or wall streeters. We are regular folks working hard like everybody else.

Increasing my taxes by almost 20% means I have to cut into my retirement savings and my kids college tuirion savings.

Nearly every dollar I have goes to pay my mortgage, car paynents, utilities, state taxes, FULLY funded social security taxes, fed income tax, food, student loans, credit cards, and gas. I save a large amount of my money for my retired life, because as I have lived my entire life, I sacrifice the short term for long term goals.

I was an enlisted man in the army which I did to get my bachelors for free. Most of my other jobs before and after the Army were construction and landscaping. Jobs with flexible hours for the most part so I could go on and get my masters degree and my wife could get hers as well. We put off having children for over 10 years to make sure we stabilized our educational and work goals to make sure we could work towards our long term goals.

Now suddenly I have to axe a great bit of what I scrimp and save affecting the future of myself and my child(soon to be 'ren') for what end?

I pay a larger percentage of my income in taxes than nearly anyone since I am in the highest tax bracket and I FULLY fund all but about 500 bucks a year for social security.

When do I get to feel it is enough?

If you can't live the good life on $250K a year in Tenne-friggin-see, you are a mongoloid.

FACT!

#165 | Posted by Sully at 2009-04-21 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This is an excellent point. 250K in Tennessee is NOt the same as it is in NYC, LA, San Fran, or Washington DC.

250K a year in those places is upper middle class...

When do I get to feel it is enough?

#167 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-04-21 12:52 PM | Reply | Fl

Poor baby. Go to work at Wendy's and your tax problems are solved. Many people at Wendy's work 50 hours a week, and so do their wives. I don't hear them bitching like you--and they pay taxes too. STFU, and count your lucky stars at your good fortune. Many people work much longer and much harder than you. Have a pity party with someone who cares.

In the 50's, the highest tax rate was 90%. What a whiner you are.

"my child(soon to be 'ren')"...

Congratulations!

On another note, you said you don't mind giving to charity. Hypothetically speaking, what if you were required to give that extra amount (between 55K and 64K) to charity rather than taxes? You had no choice, but it was going to a different place?

Bob, you're a tool. Your main hypothesis is that if you make a lot of money, you must not be working hard, whereas if you make very little money, you must be working hard.

I would say the two can have very little to do with each other.

Like I said, there are some who post here who don't accept that someone who makes a good living works hard.

I don't think this applies to very many people but buffalocockintheass is certainly one of them.

#155 | Posted by eberly at 2009-04-21 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag

Yeah? Tell us what you do rich boy. Tell us who "works hard" and makes 250,000 a year. Name that job. Name the job that make 250,000 a year and has the work load involved of a coal miner or factory worker. Hell--I could have run AIG as well as those "hard worker"---same with Bear Stearns or GM---If I ran GM, we would have not cancelled a perfectly fine running electric car in 1996. Yeah those guys are all "hard workers".

"my child(soon to be 'ren')"...

Congratulations!

On another note, you said you don't mind giving to charity. Hypothetically speaking, what if you were required to give that extra amount (between 55K and 64K) to charity rather than taxes? You had no choice, but it was going to a different place?

#170 | Posted by dylanfan at 2009-04-21 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Thanks!

I would have less of a problem with that as long as I could choose the charity.

Too many are nearly as inefficient and silly as the government.

92% of the money I give to my church run homeless shelter goes to pay for food and blankets, and the like. the rest is for miscellaneous overhead like office supplies.

You ever seen the government operate anything as efficiently?

Look, I don't mind paying a taxes, and I find it humorous that people are shoveling words into my mouth like I am btching about paying all taxes. EVERYONE should pay their fair share, but the percentage of my income dissappearing to the black hole of the government is mindboggling.

Bob, you're a tool. Your main hypothesis is that if you make a lot of money, you must not be working hard, whereas if you make very little money, you must be working hard.

I would say the two can have very little to do with each other.

#171 | Posted by dylanfan at 2009-04-21 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag

You said those things--not me---just because you don't make much money, does not necessarily mean you work hard. You are trying to put your moronic words in my mouth.

Name the job or STFU. Simple isn't it.

BBob,

Working "hard" is a phrase. That is all. What someone usually means when they say that is that one both works "hard" AND works "smart". Let's use a surgeon as an example. VERY high salary, but also required 8 years of school at an up-front cost of upwards $200k and out-of-the-gate pay as an intern isn't great AND with insanely long hours. Yet after all of that time and money invested, a surgeon can easily rake in $250k per year.

Yeah? Tell us what you do rich boy. Tell us who "works hard" and makes 250,000 a year. Name that job. Name the job that make 250,000 a year and has the work load involved of a coal miner or factory worker. Hell--I could have run AIG as well as those "hard worker"---same with Bear Stearns or GM---If I ran GM, we would have not cancelled a perfectly fine running electric car in 1996. Yeah those guys are all "hard workers".

#172 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-21 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

What about two people that earn around a hundred a year bob. Never heard of people that make a a hundred a year work hard?

The funny part is, if I made 200K and my wife made 0% we would gain a 3% tax break by not having to pay social security taxes on half the income. But becuase we BOTH work and BOTH do moderately well, we both fully fund Social Security and end up paying, as has been pointed out by other posters, the highest percentage of my income in taxes.

This isn;t whining this is a fact. Then you suddenly want to take even MORE of my money? get out of my families future Bob. I already pay more than what? over at least 85% of the entire country in taxes.

92% of the money I give to my church run homeless shelter goes to pay for food and blankets, and the like. the rest is for miscellaneous overhead like office supplies.

#173 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-04-21 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some people believe anything. That's why that Brooklyn Bridge sold so many times. I bet you have a share.

Too many are nearly as inefficient and silly as the government.

That's what makes being charitable hard these days. Anymore, I pretty much go by the 'charity begins at home' thing and give to relatives who need it. It sucks in that I can't write it off, but I figure the amount I lose (don't save) in taxes would've been lost in admin costs of an organized charity -- and my relatives are better off for it.


92% of the money I give to my church run homeless shelter goes to pay for food and blankets, and the like. the rest is for miscellaneous overhead like office supplies.

#173 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-04-21 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some people believe anything. That's why that Brooklyn Bridge sold so many times. I bet you have a share.

TGNH's numbers sound about right. My dad used to donate some of his time by handling the accounting for his church (he's now a retired CPA) and TGNH's numbers are consistent with what he showed me when I was a senior in high school. He was impressed as to how much of the donated money went directly to where it was intended as opposed to how much social safety net dollars get absorbed in beaurocracy.

I would say that sounds right for the smaller churches. We are not talking about Pat Robinson or Benny Hinn numbers here.

Some people believe anything. That's why that Brooklyn Bridge sold so many times. I bet you have a share.

#177 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-21 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I know you hate anything church related, but they do SOME good things. I am no Bible thumper andd I don't think I can quote one verse of scritpure. But I believe and I enjoy going to church. Teh fact that they have no payments for labor since everything is donated time is nice to see.

Hell--I could have run AIG as well as those "hard worker"---same with Bear Stearns or GM---If I ran GM, we would have not cancelled a perfectly fine running electric car in 1996.

Then why didn't you apply for the job and tell them you would take 10% of what the current CEO was making? You'd still be a millionaire and the company could have saved money to boot!

Rhetorical question. We all know the only thing you can run is your mouth, bOoB

Actually you would be wrong.

#167 | Posted by TGNH

Let me state that I'm not ideologically in favor of taxing "the rich." I favor lower taxes for everyone, but only if coupled with lower spending. We can't have, as JeffJ put it, European socialism (coupled with American military spending) on American tax rates. I also don't feel you have to justify your salary with your life story. The retards who assume making 200k equals cushy, lazy lifestyle (like BoOb here) are just painting with a broad brush. I work for doctors who have worked hard their entire lives, in a field where they are held to a very high standard of responsibility, and make plenty more than you do in a lower cost of living area.

But are you sure I'm wrong about the higher tax rate only applying to income over the cut off? Could one of our tax gurus confirm or deny?

I have a hard time believing that if the cut off were 250k, someone making 249k would take home more than someone making 251k.

#163 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2009-04-21 12:29 PM | Reply

Only a retard would think there aren't exceptions. Only a retard would believe that any of us were talking about 100% of poor people.
Does MS stand for Mentally Stupid?

(sings) Mr. F

#181 | Posted by TGNH

Don't worry about Bob. He doesn't have the faintest clue about how your church, or probably any other church for that matter, operates. But he will argue with you about for days if you let him.

I would say that sounds right for the smaller churches. We are not talking about Pat Robinson or Benny Hinn numbers here.

#180 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-04-21 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yes. I am not a tv evangelist supporter. Just a small local church.

I have a hard time believing that if the cut off were 250k, someone making 249k would take home more than someone making 251k.

#183 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-21 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No you are correect it is graded so only the amount over that amount is affected, but because the entire spectrum of taxe rates changes lowering all thresholds, the net effect is near 20% increase in my tax bill.

What about two people that earn around a hundred a year bob. Never heard of people that make a a hundred a year work hard?

Sort of beside the point isn't it? 100k a year is only 40% of 250k---kind of moving the bar aren't you?---sort of deflecting aren't you. To answer your deflection and bar moving attempt---those who make 100k a year get a tax break---whether they work hard or not.

The funny part is, if I made 200K and my wife made 0% we would gain a 3% tax break by not having to pay social security taxes on half the income.

You also don't get the higher social security benefits when you retire. You seem to think Social security is for someone else--no--it is for you. If only you work--only you get more applied to your social security benefit.

But becuase we BOTH work and BOTH do moderately well, we both fully fund Social Security and end up paying, as has been pointed out by other posters, the highest percentage of my income in taxes.

BULLSHIT.

This isn;t whining this is a fact. Then you suddenly want to take even MORE of my money?

You get a refund--no one is taking more of your money. Show me the link where Obama says your taxes will go up making 100k a year.

get out of my families future Bob. I already pay more than what? over at least 85% of the entire country in taxes.

Then you make more than 85% of the country. Do you think 15% of the country makes more than you? You are a whiny little pissant. STFU and enjoy your life--a life that is better funded than 85% of the population, and you want to whine about your taxes.

#176 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-04-21 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag

He was impressed as to how much of the donated money went directly to where it was intended as opposed to how much social safety net dollars get absorbed in beaurocracy.
#179 | Posted by JeffJ

Hey, lots of businesses could do that if they used mostly slave labor... er, I mean volunteers.

Don't be giving anybody any ideas.

Don't be giving anybody any ideas.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-04-21 01:29 PM

THANKS HAG! My boss was looking over my shoulder and has since decided our company must become a faith and we must all convert to it. He will then apply for tax exempt status and stop paying us since it is now our duty to G-d AKA my boss.

We have lots of churches---few places where people can go eat and sleep. When it gets cold outside, every year I hear about homeless running out of shelter. Where are all those churches then? If they are giving 92% to help the poor, someone is getting ripped off. I think it is the people who believe that 92% crap. That falls into the category of numbers pulled out of someones ass.

#189 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-21 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You really are not bright bob. DO THE MATH. Our combined income is 200K..... and Obama in his campaign ads stated the tax hikes would be hitting those making 200K or more.

As I have stated previously, I am glad to see him bring it back up to 250K, but he himself said 200 which means ME.

and yes I DO fully fund Social security you clown. the fully funded amount in 2008 was 102K. So wmy wife and I BOTH fully fund it.

get a grip.

No you are correect it is graded so only the amount over that amount is affected, but because the entire spectrum of taxe rates changes lowering all thresholds, the net effect is near 20% increase in my tax bill.

#188 | Posted by TGNH

Ah, I see what you're saying.

#192 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-21 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Bob.. I am not saying ALL churches do this. But I have volunteered at mine.

There are not enough. maybe becuase they don't have enough donations because it is all being thrown into the government bureaucratic black hole?

THANKS HAG! My boss was looking over my shoulder and has since decided our company must become a faith and we must all convert to it. He will then apply for tax exempt status and stop paying us since it is now our duty to G-d AKA my boss.
#191 | Posted by kanrei

Sorry. Three or four tabs in his coffee should fix that right quick.

Remember to put a little GD on in the backround to get things moving. Then tell him you don't hear anything.

Not a hijack.

You really are not bright bob. DO THE MATH. Our combined income is 200K..... and Obama in his campaign ads stated the tax hikes would be hitting those making 200K or more.

First, you need to do the math. If you are making close to the amount---and 200 is the cut-off--- take a week off, make less than your 200, and get a tax break instead of a tax increase. That way youy have an additional weeks vacation, partially paid for by your tax break. In addition, the tax increase for those making more money is where it was before Bush started the country down the road to bankruptcy. Not that you care about that at all--but just the same....

If it is a 250 cut off, then you are crying before you are hurt.

#193 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-04-21 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Buffalo_Titties, you're just jealous of TGNH's hard work and success.

No, but he's making over 200K, so he must not be working hard. Get it right, LoD!

WI

Actualy I find it funny that most private charities will help me out but as far as the gov goes I do not qualify. I can sit in the social services office and watch Laquisha and her boyfriend playing their PSP's while waiting with their bag of brand new X-Box games sitting next to them getting food stamps but me oh heck no.

Belive it or not I am all for cutting taxes or not increasing them. I also think there should be larger exemptions for charitable donations. I was just getting pissed at the broad brush being used to paint poor people.

101,

Actualy you were quoting Eb and he had made a comment about poverty and choices so yes you were including me and my "choice" to get MS. If your curious though MS eats holes in the brain and frequently causes cognative problems so yes it could stand for metaly stupid. Don't worry though I forgot to pay my PC police dues this month so they won't come after you for that insensitive remark.

Yeah? Tell us what you do rich boy. Tell us who "works hard" and makes 250,000 a year.

it has to be hard labor? It can't be that you have to travel extensively and work 70 hours a week?

you are such a pussy.

Just wondering, did I choose to get a disabling disease at age 29 that cost me 5k a year in medical expenses and cost me about 15k a year in income?

Certainly not. However, if your case was the norm for folks living in poverty then we wouldn't have a poverty problem in this country.

"The choice I spoke of was personal sacrifice vs personal immmediate pleasure that we see as the norm in our current society." - WIHunter

Yet you assign a generic position to the poor, that they _must_ have made choices opposite of yours to have become poor. That entire argument is crap.

"Just as we must not stimatize being rich for being rich but highlight the ones that work hard to achieve it."

Yeah, we should. And, again, not assign generic positions that if someone is rich it is because they worked hard. And, since the distinction you spoke of is rarely made, the preceeding is the default version. Again, crap.

And thus the core of the entire rich/poor debate. Way too often the generic descriptions are accepted as the fact. If you doubt that, read this thread again.

Name the job that make 250,000 a year and has the work load involved of a coal miner or factory worker.

The resident retard here can't remember that labor is a commodity.

No labor is a commodity to greedy douchebags only.

from above...

"...The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church"...
that is more than my mortgage...

250k a year is damn well off if not rich.
I feel no pity for such people whining about
"hard times".

I have a hard time believing that if the cut off were 250k, someone making 249k would take home more than someone making 251k.

#183 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-21 01:23 PM

That is because you live in the real world. Someone earning $251,000 will bring home more than someone earning $249,000 since the tax brackets are progressive.

Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool.

In the 50's, the highest tax rate was 90%. What a whiner you are.

#169 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-21 01:02 PM

Quite right Bob.

Can someone tell me if the there was such a discrepancy in income levels that there is now between CEO's and the people that earn the money?

Seems to me the lower the upper income tax rates are, the more apt the ownership society will hoard the earnings and piss all over the labor that created it.

In the 50's, the highest tax rate was 90%.

on incomes over $400K. In the 50s, how many filers had incomes over $400K?

www.truthandpolitics.org

No labor is a commodity to greedy douchebags only.

Is wheat a commodity to greedy douchebags only?

Corn? Beef?

I didn't make labor a commodity. It just is. You can agree to work for a certain wage or walk away. Your employer will pay what the market bears.

labor is a commodity. I don't necessarily like it all the time either.

"labor is a commodity."

It is viewed as such economically by capitalism. One of the downsides and weaknesses of capitalism. Something even supporters of capitalism pointed out in the days of Adam Smith.

Of course labor is a commodity. That's the point of industrial capitalism, to standardize labor and turn each worker into labor units that can be easily replaced if those worker-bots get too uppity.

Typical dr lefty rant.

Try going to school ...then work " seven days a week " to earn 250T...instead being filled with envy and jealousy over how these people spend the money they earned.

"...The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church"...

......that'll keep the minister in coke & whores real fine......

"Try going to school ...then work " seven days a week " to earn 250T...instead being filled with envy and jealousy over how these people spend the money they earned."

Why? My parents left me way more than that. Only losers work.

#213 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-04-21 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag

Because you know so much about the church this family attends....

Because you know so much about the church this family attends....
......#215 | Posted by dylanfan

......all churches share some common values........

.....Catholics bumfuck the altar boys........

......Protestant ministers are greedy, money grubbing, closeted gays, who come to grips with their hidden homosexual life by doing drugs .......

.....it's the same all over......

....and their minister is probably very glad for the extra 1,300 a month these suckers provide to finance his lifestyle......

......I'm sure he considers it a God-send.......

Yes, you're right, all RC priests sodomize altar boys, and all protestant ministers are in it for the money. While we're at it, can we add that all posters who use too many periods are full of shit and get off on painting with a broad brush? Thanks.

I didn't even include that Tennessee has a 9% sales tax. Then there are all the other taxes that democrats get you with like, property tax, gas tax, car tags, etc. Before you know you don't pass go or collect $200 dollars.

I also wonder since he is a surgeon does he have college loans to pay off.

In the end they really are not that well off. Democrats have seen to that.

#137 | Posted by buzkiller at 2009-04-21 06:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Democrats fault? Seems an odd thing to say seeing as this man is paying Bush-era taxes. I thought the false-prophet Bushit was going to correct everything that the 'evil' Dems had done?

Yep dylan,

I bet that pastor that helped me out with my perscription cost was pissed that I was digging into his male hooker and drug money, I mean we know churches never use donations for good.
/scarcasm

TGHN - you said if Obama calls >200k rich, that your taxes go from 33% to 39.6 - up 6.6% and that it works out to over a grand a month...

correct me if I am wrong, I thought that the higher tax bracket only applies to income OVER the 200k. In that sense, even if you earned $250k, and the cutoff was $200k, the extra tax would be less than $300 a month...

#91 | Posted by JimmiG at 2009-04-20 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Absolutely incorrect. The tax code doesn;t tax different portions of your income at different rates.

If you make enough to be in the bracket ALL of your income is taxed at that rate.

In other words, if I were to make 205K which is about what I make now and the cut off is 200K to be considered rich, if I made 199,999 I would pay nearly 14K LESS in taxes. 5K less in income and 14K less in taxes. 9 Grand difference to be LESS productive.

ouch.

----

TGHN - You are absolutely incorrect. The tax rates we speak of are "marginal". Your example is exactly INCORRECT. If the tax rates change at a certain dollar amount, you pay the higher rate ONLY on the amount above that dollar amount. For example, lets say the tax rates were:

$ 0 - $100,000: 10%
$100,001 - $200,000: 20%

If your taxable income was $100,000, your tax bill would be $10,000.

If your taxable income was $110,000, your tax bill would be $12,000.

I was thinking what happens
If the husband dies, I hope they have good life insurance. If they don't they are fucked. I always chuckle when I read about christians suffering

I was thinking what happens
If the husband dies, I hope they have good life insurance.

Most families would be fucked if the breadwinner died.

Even the one's who aren't Christian

Would you feel worse if they weren't Christian or tithing any money to a church?

:-(

Sorry 250K here in OK is similar to 250K in TN. They are rich... if you have 4K a month in mortgage payments .. 2nd mortages ... etc .. then that it is YOUR FRICKIN CHOICE ... live with it .. or sell some land.

Eberly@3:02

No, not many people made over $400k in the 1950s. Heck, most made less than $12k (which is where tax rates above Obama's proposed return to 39.6% started).

Part of that, though, was an effect of the tax system. Under such a system, if you were a company executive it made a whole, whole lot more sense to reinvest in your company, so it remained healthy and well-respected, and could provide you with a nice $100k corner-office golf-playing salary for decades and decades.

With a 35% top rate? It suddenly makes a lot more sense to screw the company over, goose a quarterly reports, outsource some jobs, cut some whack-ass mergers, and take a $50 million golden parachute out the door.

Buffalo Bob wrote,

"In the 50's, the highest tax rate was 90%. What a whiner you are."

Bob in the past you could also write off phone bills and credit card interest on your personal taxes and a lot of other write off that don't exist now.

If your phone calls are a business expense, you can write them off. There weren't many credit cards in the 50's

If it's business related you can write off cell phones, PC's, laptops, books subscriptions ... etc ... Last Time I checked there were no PC's or cell phones in the 50's

So let me get this straight...

TGNH makes over 200K a year, and he's bitching because the taxes are gonna go up from Bush's term, but are still WAY less than reagan or clinton #'s?

Whiner. STFU and pay.

I know you hate anything church related, but they do SOME good things. I am no Bible thumper andd I don't think I can quote one verse of scritpure. But I believe and I enjoy going to church. Teh fact that they have no payments for labor since everything is donated time is nice to see.

#181 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-04-21 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, if you are "no Bible thumper" and can't quote one verse of scripture, what DO you believe and why do you believe it? Why do you enjoy going to church?

Why do people think that "rich" signifies that they don't have to worry or care about money? The families listed in the article *are* rich, they have several properties, they send their kids to private schools, are able to tithe 1300/month, go on vacations at the beach every year, etc. These types of people will never "feel rich", they'll always spend within a certain percent of their takehome and then claim that they're only middle class. If they doubled their salary they'd just have newer cars, maybe take another vacation each year, tithe more to their church, and still complain that they're within a few thousand dollars / month of being destitute.

"We've made a clear promise that families that earn less than $250,000 will not see their taxes increase by a single dime."

Here is one of his BIGGEST lies!!!
Cap and trade, "Green Jobs", continued bail outs, new cigarette taxes, all of this is a tax!!! Everyone will pay for this stuff no matter how much you do or don't make!!!

There is a lot of wealth envy in these postings!! $250k these days IS NOT wealthy, and all of you who are pissed because they make that much and you don't, get off your asses and make a better life for yourselves!! Wear their shoes and live their life before you get all high and mighty!!!

"Wear their shoes and live their life before you get all high and mighty!!!"

Fuck off, seedeez.

You've no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Whiner. STFU and pay.

#229 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-04-21 11:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I love how stating I think I pay enough taxes gets conflated to be "I don't want to pay any taxes."

I hope the government comes in and decides you need a 5% reduction in your [b]salary[/b] just like I am looking at. Then we will see how much you STFU and pay.

I don't mind paying taxes, but I am paying a larger percentage of my income than anyone else. I am in the highest tax bracket while at the same time FULL funding social security. I am supposed to be happy about that and then be extra happy when the government decides they need even MORE of my money?

"I don't mind paying taxes, but I am paying a larger percentage of my income than anyone else."

Perhaps not true. You are married, correct?
So you can file a joint return, correct?
Thus
A single person would pay a little bit more than you. A gay person can't get married and thus can't ever file a joint return and will always pay more than his/her fair share.

A single person would pay a little bit more than you. A gay person can't get married and thus can't ever file a joint return and will always pay more than his/her fair share.

#235 | Posted by danni at 2009-04-22 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

In those small instances you may be correct.

And the gay marriage penalty is a stain on the nation I hope is removed.

But it still doesn't mean I should be excited as heck to take a 5% pay cut.

Seedeez -

What state/community do you live in? It's been discussed ad nauseum that cost of living is different in different areas, and that 250k may not be much in some places but is a lot in others.

I'll tell you that where I am, if you're banking 250k/yr, own two homes, and vacation on the beach every year, you're rich. I'd like to know what standards you're using to say that these people are "NOT wealthy."

And did it occur to you that perhaps we're not jealous of what they make, but rather think they should stop their bitching and moaning about "only" having $1400/mo of discretionary income. I'm happy with my salary, and it's significantly less than the people in the story; my gripe is that I think they have plenty to be happy with, too.

Angrydad and Dylanfan, I guess the logic I spoke of hit hard with both of you.
I live in rural North Florida and if you make 250k around here you will do very well. That does not diminish the fact that 250k is not wealthy these days. No dobut this family has more to work with then the average, but that is not their "fault".
I believe the story stated that he is a surgeon. Any clue how long he went to school for that? He probably STILL has school loans to contend with. Don't we all live a little "larger" than we should?
I know I do and I dont make 1/3 of what they do, but my family's needs are met and out wants are addressed as money allows.

You douches are pissed because you haven't had the stones or the brains to make a better life for yourselves and your families and that makes it okay to tax/over tax someone else? Get a life and take care of yourself and don't depend on me or them to take care of you!!!

Fuck off, seedeez.

You've no fucking clue what you're talking about. - Angrydad

Angrydad probably beats his wife and kids then his meat to his neighbor's tax return.

Look, I'm not pissed because this family makes a lot of money. I read the article; I know he has school loans to pay off. What bothers me is that he has the gall, after going over his expenses and the fact that he as $1400 in EXPENDABLE income every MONTH (that's after those school loans that both you and I agree are rather large...and after mortgage payments on TWO houses) to say that he's not wealthy. What would wealthy be to him? What is it to you? Perhaps there were too many comments on this thread and you didn't read all of them. Did you miss the comment that stated he makes more than 98% of the people in this country? That's great, I'm happy for him. And it makes him wealthy. Period. 250K in Tennessee is wealthy, rich, hoity toity, whatever label you want to give it. Is it old money? No. Is it stinking filthy rich? No. But the man does not have my sympathy.

If you make $250,000 a year in NYC you probably can't afford to buy a co-op big enough for a family with three kids. A decent two bedroom apartment with cost around $3,500-$4,000 a month to RENT. Forget about buying a co-op in Manhattan in you have a family. For a two bedroom you are talking close to a million. The maitenance fees are really high too. Over $500 a month. Even in Brooklyn it is expensive. One bedrooms in a new building in Williamsburg are over $500,000

Then if you got three kids you are not sending them to public school. Most public schools in NYC are horrible. Some like Brooklyn Tech and Steyvestant are good but schools like Lincoln are really bad.

Forget about having a car unless you want to spent %500 a month to park it in a garage. YOu better hope your wife gets a promotion so you can start saving for college for your kids.

True.

This family lives in Tennesee.

This works for every liberal who occupied the White House

Obama Tax Policy - Explained With Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh would pay $7.
* The eighth would pay $12.
* The ninth would pay $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'
'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.


And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only Saved a dollar,too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier

They already are "drinking overseas", numbnuts.

That's the bitter reality of the so-called "global economy"

American based businesses indeed businesses all over the western industrialised world are shutting up shop and moving their operations en masse to countries where labour rights and enviromental standards are an unfunny joke.

This is supposed to "level the playing field" and increase standards of living all over but the reality is that the gains made by those people in those countries are marginal while the suffering created by the contracting economies of the west are massive.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

And angrier.

Rightfully so.

The class war that's been going on since the beginning of recorded history is increasingly being won by a very tiny number of people around the globe while the vast majority get caught between the "rock and hard place" of inflation and declining wages.

Little islands of hyper wealth pop up in a sea of poverty and misery.

Yer argument is the primary one used to create loopholes that allow transnational corporations to pay much, much less than the 35% tax they currently are supposed to pay.

Governments are not only lobbied into creating such loopholes but also into removing the teeth of any legislation that might protect the standard of living or at least slow it's decline.

Yer apologisms fer increased inequity are as transparent as they are odious.

Understand that.

Be Well.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable