How the tax system works Options

[cmac]

Interesting....
-----
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.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

[Dogmeat]

That RULES dude. Do you have a link to the original article?

[chook]

what is failure is incorporating your family. Kennedy's pay nothing.

[Oasis]

My sophomore economics teacher (an avowed conservative) told me a variation of this story. Been retelling it ever since.

Absolutely awesome and 100% accurate

[blaarg]

so let me get this straight... do they all drink the same amount of beer?

[Rocky]

That RULES dude. Do you have a link to the original article?

This one ?

http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/

Complete vitae available online. Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics." Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it.

I do like the overall gist though.

[Hartmann]

so let me get this straight... do they all drink the same amount of beer?

Theoretically, yes.


Just for the record, I heard Obama state a number for the salary figure that will see a tax increase if he's elected, $70,000.

He considers folks who make 70,000 "rich"

That means for small business owners and freelancers who are not incorporated, make $100,000 a year in gross profit will have to pay on this increase, even though of that gross they are only going to bring $20,000 home.

[cmac]

i got it from here:
http://www.wisebread.com/bar-stool-economics-0

[Spectatrix]

Theoretically, yes.
Just for the record, I heard Obama state a number for the salary figure that will see a tax increase if he's elected, $70,000.

He considers folks who make 70,000 "rich"

I make just over that!

Oh wait, my taxable income (after taking out insurance, retirement, medical flex plan, etc.) is lower than that. Never mind.

[Dogmeat]

Obama is a fucking communist. Period.

Democrats scarape the bottom of the barrel of American society for votes.

Personally I don't think that you should be allowed to vote unless you can prove you're making more than $24,000 a year, because essentially you aren't contributing to the economy therefore I fail to see how you should have any say in selecting who decides economic policy for this country.

Oh wait, if we did that there would never be a Democrat that would ever get elected. Oh darn.


Yeah I'm gonna be fucked paying %40 income tax if Hillary and/or Obama get their way becacuse I'm just so so so so so so so so rich

[Psykopath]

Obama is a fucking communist. Period.

Democrats scarape the bottom of the barrel of American society for votes.

Personally I don't think that you should be allowed to vote unless you can prove you're making more than $24,000 a year, because essentially you aren't contributing to the economy therefore I fail to see how you should have any say in selecting who decides economic policy for this country.

Oh wait, if we did that there would never be a Democrat that would ever get elected. Oh darn.
Yeah I'm gonna be fucked paying %40 income tax if Hillary and/or Obama get their way becacuse I'm just so so so so so so so so rich

HAHAHA

Disenfranchisement much?


Seriously, Aaron....how truthful are you being with your posted political views on Techsans?
Because you call Obama an "evil liberal hippie communist end-of-world blah blah waaaaah" guy, yet you make completely unAmerican and fucked up statements like that...

[impala454]

Never understood why it takes a layman's story for people to understand that rich people pay the most taxes, and therefore benefit the most from tax breaks.

[blaarg]

Theoretically, yes.

Isn't this a problem or am I reading it wrong?
Wouldn't the rich guy drink more beer (i.e. he has more money to spend so he pays more of the tab aka taxes) and the poorest people get only drops (i.e. pay minimal because they don't have the money to spend)?

Isn't that what differentiates between the rich and poor men. The amount of beer they can afford to pay?

[blaarg]

Never understood why it takes a layman's story for people to understand that rich people pay the most taxes, and therefore benefit the most from tax breaks.

They pay the most taxes $$$ wise, but is it true if you considered it the percentage of their income? I remember something like Rupert Murdoch said he would pay someone $1million if he/she paid a lower percentage of taxes than him, but idk...

[Hartmann]

Isn't this a problem or am I reading it wrong?
Wouldn't the rich guy drink more beer (i.e. he has more money to spend so he pays more of the tab aka taxes) and the poorest people get only drops (i.e. pay minimal because they don't have the money to spend)?

The example isn't how much drink is distributed, it's how the bill is divided.

If a "poor" person pays less taxes then they have money to spend because it didn't go to the government.

The point is, if the wealthy keep being required to pay more and more, they will eventually just stop paying. They don't want to pick up the tab for those who pay the least. If the poor can't pay, they shouldn't receive the benefit (ie, drink drops).

[impala454]

They pay the most taxes $$$ wise, but is it true if you considered it the percentage of their income?

Yeah they pay a higher percentage. Just look at the tax table. Not to mention people who make millions have tons of other taxes (capital gains, big taxes on interest earned, etc). Yeah someone who made $750,000 probably won't pay all that much higher of a % than someone who made $500,000, but will definitely pay a higher % over someone who made $50,000.

[pebkac]

Never understood why it takes a layman's story for people to understand that rich people pay the most taxes, and therefore benefit the most from tax breaks.

Because most laymen's stories such as this one are gross undersimplifications that don't represent the way the system works.

[Melanie]

I'm just going to type this up to see my new avatar. Oh, and I don't agree at all with what y'all are saying. But y'all already knew that.

[Spectatrix]

Oh goody, another avatar to adblock. What a horrible ass-raping of Tenacious D.

[Melanie]

Christine... HUSH. I like it. I just wish they would've given hillary a penis.

[Dogmeat]

HAHAHA

Disenfranchisement much?
Seriously, Aaron....how truthful are you being with your posted political views on Techsans?
Because you call Obama an "evil liberal hippie communist end-of-world blah blah waaaaah" guy, yet you make completely unAmerican and fucked up statements like that...

People who do not contribute to the US economy should not have a say in US economic policy.

It's the same logic that pro-choice people use. Men shouldn't have a right to dictate how a woman cares for her body.

Seriously, why should a bunch of jobless laid-off union workers blown out of their minds on cocaine and marajuana who are milking the companies they used to work for on health insurance because they're too stupid to not destroy themselves be able to dictate how much of my paycheck that I actually earn goes to trying to fix their fuckups in life?

[Hartmann]

I'm just going to type this up to see my new avatar. Oh, and I don't agree at all with what y'all are saying. But y'all already knew that.

With what who is saying?

[Psykopath]

People who do not contribute to the US economy should not have a say in US economic policy.

It's the same logic that pro-choice people use. Men shouldn't have a right to dictate how a woman cares for her body.

Seriously, why should a bunch of jobless laid-off union workers blown out of their minds on cocaine and marajuana who are milking the companies they used to work for on health insurance because they're too stupid to not destroy themselves be able to dictate how much of my paycheck that I actually earn goes to trying to fix their fuckups in life?

So elected officials only decide economic policy?

Wow, news to me.

[Dogmeat]

So elected officials only decide economic policy?

Wow, news to me.

Who votes them into office is what I'm getting at here. And no, just because a few news headlines claim that Obama's "gaining support" from young twenty-something well-paid college graduates doesn't overturn the fact that Democrats primarily scrape the bottom of the barrel of American society for votes....

[Psykopath]

Who votes them into office is what I'm getting at here. And no, just because a few news headlines claim that Obama's "gaining support" from young twenty-something well-paid college graduates doesn't overturn the fact that Democrats primarily scrape the bottom of the barrel of American society for votes....

I've seen plenty of white-trash rednecks (i.e.- "bottom of the barrel of American society") vote Republican.

[Hartmann]

Clarification, the income point is $75,000, not $70k.

[Melanie]

haha I'm loving this because the people that are the most vocal conservatives that are for these economic policies are middle Americans that are in the lower socio-economic bracket.

[impala454]

I've seen plenty of white-trash rednecks (i.e.- "bottom of the barrel of American society") vote Republican.

Right but they aren't exactly the "targeted" voters by the Republican candidates.

[Hartmann]

haha I'm loving this because the people that are the most vocal conservatives that are for these economic policies are middle Americans that are in the lower socio-economic bracket.

??? What policies? Obama's?

[Dogmeat]

I've seen plenty of white-trash rednecks (i.e.- "bottom of the barrel of American society") vote Republican.

Were they employed?

[Dogmeat]

Clarification, the income point is $75,000, not $70k.

If you're making $500,000 a year I can see being taxed accordingly for it....

0-$250,000 I think a flat tax should apply ... then $250,000-$500,000, more, then $500,000 and over you should be taxed no more than %25.

[Melanie]

look dammit (funny dammit)! I just wanted to see my new avatar. What y'all say on here doesn't mean two shits because most of y'all probably won't vote. That's the way young people always are. And if it means that much to you, contact your damn Congressman and bitch. But posting stuff up on here won't get anything resolved.

[Hartmann]

look dammit (funny dammit)! I just wanted to see my new avatar. What y'all say on here doesn't mean two shits because most of y'all probably won't vote. That's the way young people always are. And if it means that much to you, contact your damn Congressman and bitch. But posting stuff up on here won't get anything resolved.

W.T.F?

I do vote so don't get all holier than thou... If I remember correctly you're "young" as well so who's to say you'll vote?

I just wanted to know what you were talking about because I can make vague statements too.

[Spectatrix]

look dammit (funny dammit)! I just wanted to see my new avatar. What y'all say on here doesn't mean two shits because most of y'all probably won't vote. That's the way young people always are. And if it means that much to you, contact your damn Congressman and bitch. But posting stuff up on here won't get anything resolved.

I have voted in every damn national/state election since I turned 18, several local elections too. And I have called my Congressmen and Representative before. Just because I don't go to state political convention meetings or work for a state congressman for minimal pay doesn't mean I'm not involved in the process!

[FORSAKENR320]

Personally I don't think that you should be allowed to vote unless you can prove you're making more than $24,000 a year, because essentially you aren't contributing to the economy therefore I fail to see how you should have any say in selecting who decides economic policy for this country.

was done already. didn't work

[Melanie]

I have voted in every damn national/state election since I turned 18, several local elections too. And I have called my Congressmen and Representative before. Just because I don't go to state political convention meetings or work for a state congressman for minimal pay doesn't mean I'm not involved in the process!

Good job! I meant the general y'all.

[Psykopath]

Were they employed?

Some yes, some no.

Right but they aren't exactly the "targeted" voters by the Republican candidates.

Riiiiight.

Just like Black voters aren't targeted by Obama and women voters aren't targeted by Hilary.

[impala454]

Riiiiight.

Just like Black voters aren't targeted by Obama and women voters aren't targeted by Hilary.

I haven't seen John McCain at a Nascar race. I have, however seen Obama trolling the poor neighborhoods and Hillary preaching up the women's associations (not to mention her presentation of herself as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" when around women's groups/liberals and "Hillary Clinton" with Bill by her side when in a more conservative area.

[blaarg]

They don't want to pick up the tab for those who pay the least. If the poor can't pay, they shouldn't receive the benefit (ie, drink drops).

That is what I am getting at... the whole "if the poor can't pay, they shouldn't receive the benefit (ie, drink drops)" but in this scenario, the poor person is receiving an equal amount of beer as a rich person (which in real life, a rich person would be getting WAY more beer than a poor person). So when you say at the end that the poor people can't afford the tab (ie pay enough taxes to cover their beer consumption, the same consumption as that of the rich man) I think is a little misguided because they wouldn't be drinking as much beer...

[impala454]

That is what I am getting at... the whole "if the poor can't pay, they shouldn't receive the benefit (ie, drink drops)" but in this scenario, the poor person is receiving an equal amount of beer as a rich person (which in real life, a rich person would be getting WAY more beer than a poor person). So when you say at the end that the poor people can't afford the tab (ie pay enough taxes to cover their beer consumption, the same consumption as that of the rich man) I think is a little misguided because they wouldn't be drinking as much beer...

In what way does the rich person get more than the poor person from the taxes they pay? Do they get to drive on better roads? Do they have a separate armed forced division that only protects the rich people?

[blaarg]

Yeah they pay a higher percentage. Just look at the tax table. Not to mention people who make millions have tons of other taxes (capital gains, big taxes on interest earned, etc). Yeah someone who made $750,000 probably won't pay all that much higher of a % than someone who made $500,000, but will definitely pay a higher % over someone who made $50,000.

Here is one of the Murdoch articles I was talking about:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jun/28/usnews.money


Cliff notes:

Speaking at a fundraising dinner for senator Hillary Clinton in New York last night, Mr Buffett said it was wrong that the American tax system favoured the wealthiest in society.

"The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies for that matter," he said

[blaarg]

Because most laymen's stories such as this one are gross undersimplifications that don't represent the way the system works.

yeah this is what I was getting at...

[blaarg]

In what way does the rich person get more than the poor person from the taxes they pay? Do they get to drive on better roads? Do they have a separate armed forced division that only protects the rich people?

so everyone should pay to the lowest common denominator?

[Hartmann]

That is what I am getting at... the whole "if the poor can't pay, they shouldn't receive the benefit (ie, drink drops)" but in this scenario, the poor person is receiving an equal amount of beer as a rich person (which in real life, a rich person would be getting WAY more beer than a poor person). So when you say at the end that the poor people can't afford the tab (ie pay enough taxes to cover their beer consumption, the same consumption as that of the rich man) I think is a little misguided because they wouldn't be drinking as much beer...

But the beer represents access to government security in things like freedom of speech, which they have equal access to, so in that case, why should the more wealthy person pay more?

The beer doesn't represent something that is measurable, it represents the fact that everyone gets it.

[blaarg]

why should the more wealthy person pay more?

ok you and Impala have elucidated the "paying for services" part of it. got it.

You pose the question on why should the wealthy pay more...?
So what is the solution to this, I can think of two:
1) Everyone pays the lowest level so that everyone is on the same plane.
2) You keep the payment the same but limiting the services depending on what you can afford.

Are there any other alternatives?

[pebkac]

But the beer represents access to government security in things like freedom of speech, which they have equal access to, so in that case, why should the more wealthy person pay more?

The beer doesn't represent something that is measurable, it represents the fact that everyone gets it.

Because they have more of an ability to pay than the poor person does.

People with higher incomes have more disposable income than does a person who makes minimum wage.

[Dogmeat]

Because they have more of an ability to pay than the poor person does.

People with higher incomes have more disposable income than does a person who makes minimum wage.

I see. So everyone who is "rich" is a trust-fund baby. They didn't have to work for this money, they were by and large just handed their fortunes, and never had to work for it at all, so the crack smoking meth addicted trailer park trash should have just as much say in US economic policy.

Sounds great if that weren't for the myth that rich folk were just handed their money.

[blaarg]

I see. So everyone who is "rich" is a trust-fund baby. They didn't have to work for this money, they were by and large just handed their fortunes, and never had to work for it at all

I didn't read anything in the previous post that would suggest what you are talking about. She made the statement that:

People with higher incomes have more disposable income than does a person who makes minimum wage.

I don't see anything about trust-funds or silver spoon or anything that you are suggesting.

[Hartmann]

ok you and Impala have elucidated the "paying for services" part of it. got it.

You pose the question on why should the wealthy pay more...?
So what is the solution to this, I can think of two:
1) Everyone pays the lowest level so that everyone is on the same plane.
2) You keep the payment the same but limiting the services depending on what you can afford.

Are there any other alternatives?

I'm not sure. I just think it's slippery proposition to continually lower the "wealthy" bracket to get more money out of people. Eventually, $30k will be "wealthy" and the poor will be living in McMansions.

Because they have more of an ability to pay than the poor person does.

People with higher incomes have more disposable income than does a person who makes minimum wage.

So because they work harder or inherited money they should support the people who choose not to support themselves? That is just an issue for me.

I do not mind paying taxes on money I earned. I do mind being double taxed (owning a C Corp) and I do mind people getting free rides.

[impala454]

ok you and Impala have elucidated the "paying for services" part of it. got it.

You pose the question on why should the wealthy pay more...?
So what is the solution to this, I can think of two:
1) Everyone pays the lowest level so that everyone is on the same plane.
2) You keep the payment the same but limiting the services depending on what you can afford.

Are there any other alternatives?

They could adjust tax rates so that everyone paid the same %

[Oasis]

I get a migraine every time I read anything Melanie says about politics

[blaarg]

I'm not sure. I just think it's slippery proposition to continually lower the "wealthy" bracket to get more money out of people. Eventually, $30k will be "wealthy" and the poor will be living in McMansions.
So because they work harder or inherited money they should support the people who choose not to support themselves? That is just an issue for me.

I understand it is a tough issue.

I agree that I think lowering the wealthy bracket to get more money is a slippery proposition.
I would have to see the details of Obama's plan before I pass judgement. Something tells me it isn't as straightforward as "people who make 75K pay the same amount as the upper echelon of the tax bracket" I think that is the equivalent of political suicide.

[blaarg]

They could adjust tax rates so that everyone paid the same %

But the wealthy would still be paying more.

And you still run into the same problem of "In what way does the rich person get more than the poor person from the taxes they pay? Do they get to drive on better roads? Do they have a separate armed forced division that only protects the rich people?"

[Spectatrix]

But the wealthy would still be paying more.

And you still run into the same problem of "In what way does the rich person get more than the poor person from the taxes they pay? Do they get to drive on better roads? Do they have a separate armed forced division that only protects the rich people?"

I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't mind paying the same % as everyone else, even though it means paying out more $ than average. It's just a bit obnoxious that the more my salary goes up, the more I'll be penalized percentage-wise.

[blaarg]

I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't mind paying the same % as everyone else, even though it means paying out more $ than average. It's just a bit obnoxious that the more my salary goes up, the more I'll be penalized percentage-wise.

even as other people have pointed out you would be paying more for the same services? I mean isn't that OUTRAGEOUS!!!

[Spectatrix]

I'll be honest, I wouldn't entirely mind progressive taxes either if politicians would get their heads out of their asses and cut spending/produce a balanced budget. Though indirectly, I'm being paid by tax money, so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Feb 22 2008, 03:27 PM

[blaarg]

I'll be honest, I wouldn't entirely mind progressive taxes either if politicians would get their heads out of their asses and cut spending/produce a balanced budget. Though indirectly, I'm being paid by tax money, so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much.

What's ironic is that if the politicians did cut spending/produce a balanced budget, we would most likely start to get rid of progressive taxes!


<I hope I am using the word "ironic" correctly>

[Hartmann]

It is ironic actually. All they have to do is look at Texas to see how a balanced budget system works and how public projects still get done.

[Spectatrix]

Cut spending, cut taxes all around! Whether they remain progressive or go (mostly) flat, I care not. But cut the damn things!

My boyfriend and I were looking at a political questionnaire thing online a couple of weeks ago and one of the questions was about rolling back the Bush tax cuts. His response was basically "keep 'em, if only for incentive to politicians to actually cut back on spending."

[pebkac]

So because they work harder or inherited money they should support the people who choose not to support themselves? That is just an issue for me.

I do not mind paying taxes on money I earned. I do mind being double taxed (owning a C Corp) and I do mind people getting free rides.

Where do you get the idea that someone who is in a lower tax bracket doesn't support themselves and gets a free ride?

[Melanie]

aww blaarg I love you honey. This forum will just give you headaches. So don't worry.

[Melanie]

I get a migraine every time I read anything Melanie says about politics

So don't read what I have to say? I get the same when I read conservative stuff.

[nickluto]

Never understood why it takes a layman's story for people to understand that rich people pay the most taxes, and therefore benefit the most from tax breaks.

Haha. This reminds me of how Al Gore showed the "laymen" how global warming works by having Matt Groening write a Simpson's short of how global warming works by having Ralph Wiggam "Awwww" when his ice cream melted...and then showed the "true science" behind it with a graph (with no labels on either axes) showing a red line with an upwardly progressing trend and labeling it "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE!"

[nickluto]

Also, as an aside, FDR, during the Great Depression, in effect levied an income tax on only one man, John D. Rockefeller, for 51% of his income (because he set his tax bracket such that he was the only one in it).

[Dogmeat]

Also, as an aside, FDR, during the Great Depression, in effect levied an income tax on only one man, John D. Rockefeller, for 51% of his income (because he set his tax bracket such that he was the only one in it).

Well, when you control %10 of the US economy I guess ol uncle sam gets his panties in a bunch

shame, Rockerfeller was a good man.

[Oasis]

So don't read what I have to say? I get the same when I read conservative stuff.

Its either read what you have to say or stare at your avatar. I choose the lesser of two evils

[Melanie]

hey, I am liking my avatar!

[Dogmeat]

hillary clinton needs to do senior porn

[Spectatrix]

Haha. This reminds me of how Al Gore showed the "laymen" how global warming works by having Matt Groening write a Simpson's short of how global warming works by having Ralph Wiggam "Awwww" when his ice cream melted...and then showed the "true science" behind it with a graph (with no labels on either axes) showing a red line with an upwardly progressing trend and labeling it "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE!"

!!!

That was NOT Simpsons and it was not written for An Inconvenient Truth. It came straight out of Futurama episode "Crimes of the Hot", #408, which featured the Planet Express crew being dispatched to Haley's Comet to get the ice to drop in the ocean! But there's no ice left, so Bender and other robots fix the problem by blasting their exhaust all in the same direction and moving the earth a little bit further out in orbit.

[Testm0nkey]

"Yeah they pay a higher percentage. Just look at the tax table. Not to mention people who make millions have tons of other taxes (capital gains, big taxes on interest earned, etc). Yeah someone who made $750,000 probably won't pay all that much higher of a % than someone who made $500,000, but will definitely pay a higher % over someone who made $50,000"



- but in the end it doesnt matter. because 50,000 in taxes to a person with 750,000 doesnt mean a whole lot but a 500-1,000 to someone in poverty or who is struggling with a family means everything. its not who pays the most taxes, its how much does that tax affect their total worth. duh

and if you guys werent aware there were tax breaks for wealthy people as well. not counting any of the business ones, wealthy people are able to donate to causes, support causes and charity is a GREAT tax write off.

i didnt read anything in this thread about rich people just being trust fund babies and not working hard except for dogmeat so i dont know where that came from. whether the money was handed to them or they worked hard for it, paying a higher tax doesnt affect them as much as a poor person

He considers folks who make 70,000 "rich"

... its because they are. its the wrong of society to think otherwise. the whole gotta have this gotta have that gotta have an apartment or a house here that makes living with a 70,000 income seem like "stretching it"

[Dogmeat]

"Yeah they pay a higher percentage. Just look at the tax table. Not to mention people who make millions have tons of other taxes (capital gains, big taxes on interest earned, etc). Yeah someone who made $750,000 probably won't pay all that much higher of a % than someone who made $500,000, but will definitely pay a higher % over someone who made $50,000"
- but in the end it doesnt matter. because 50,000 in taxes to a person with 750,000 doesnt mean a whole lot but a 500-1,000 to someone in poverty or who is struggling with a family means everything. its not who pays the most taxes, its how much does that tax affect their total worth. duh

and if you guys werent aware there were tax breaks for wealthy people as well. not counting any of the business ones, wealthy people are able to donate to causes, support causes and charity is a GREAT tax write off.

i didnt read anything in this thread about rich people just being trust fund babies and not working hard except for dogmeat so i dont know where that came from. whether the money was handed to them or they worked hard for it, paying a higher tax doesnt affect them as much as a poor person
... its because they are. its the wrong of society to think otherwise. the whole gotta have this gotta have that gotta have an apartment or a house here that makes living with a 70,000 income seem like "stretching it"

Cathryn, you are smoking fucking crack if you think somone making $70,000 in this day and age is rich.

That's BARLEY enough to live comfortably and afford a house payment these days.

Christ I'm making that much right now and I have some cool toys, but that's about it, I am _FAR_ from "rich" ....

When when I take into account that the vast majority of people living in "poverty" are habitual drug users, I don't fucking feel sorry for them at all.

And don't EVEN begin to tell me about how 'poor people aren't on drugs' ... that's why they're poor.

I don't think I've ever met somone living below the poverty line who didn't use drugs ....

Sorry, I don't buy the whole $70,000 is rich thing.

40 years ago maybe, but not today.

[Testm0nkey]

where do you come up with this stuff? the vast majority of people in poverty are not drug users. and drug use is not the only thing that makes people poor...

70k is 2.5x higher than the poverty line for a family of four. 70k is higher than the top 77% of household incomes in the united states (which is 48,000)
70k is rich. you can easily afford house payments with that sort of money unless you are a total retard.

again just because you havent seen or experienced something doesnt mean its not out there or thats how a lot of people live. wasnt lubbock the biggest city youve ever lived in???

[Dogmeat]

where do you come up with this stuff? the vast majority of people in poverty are not drug users. and drug use is not the only thing that makes people poor...

70k is 2.5x higher than the poverty line for a family of four. 70k is higher than the top 77% of household incomes in the united states (which is 48,000)
70k is rich. you can easily afford house payments with that sort of money unless you are a total retard.

again just because you havent seen or experienced something doesnt mean its not out there or thats how a lot of people live. wasnt lubbock the biggest city youve ever lived in???

Yeah, and I grew up in a "middle-class ghetto" in fucking Wyoming. I know how poor white people can be.

My family wasn't always making money like we are now ...

The statistics about "how rich" $70,000 is are pure bullshit .... you are not rich making $70,000.

7 years ago this was the same as making $42,000 ....

That is not rich.

What I do know, is that by and large, the vast majority of people making this amount of money are working their asses off for it, they aren't sitting around smoking dope like virtually every single person I've ever met in my life who is taking welfare is.

I've been around poor people enough to know that drugs and poverty go hand in hand, and you apparently have lived a pretty sheltered life if you are so blind you can't see this.

Also, how do you afford a $2,000 mortgage payment when your takehome pay is about $3500 a month ... Yup, you can, that gives you a whopping $1,500 a month left to pay bills, buy food for your family, probably a vehicle payment, AND THEN ... save money?

Damn. You're fucking RICH.

[pebkac]

I don't think I'd call $70k rich... Far from being broke yes, but not rich.

[Dogmeat]

I don't think I'd call $70k rich... Far from being broke yes, but not rich.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not broke, and being single right now, I'm not doing bad at all.

However, if I had to comfortably support a family of 4 right now I would be stretched _VERY_ thin.

I forwent a hosue payment for toys ... that's the only difference between me and somone with a family.

I'm not rich at this level of income by any means and neither is anyone else.

I don't even think people making a quarter mil a year can be considered "rich" ...

I think to "truly" be rich you need to be a multi-millionaire .... seriously.

[blaarg]

Can someone produce Obama's stance on this exactly. It would be helpful to know what exactly he is talking about when he says 75K would be considered rich...

I just want to see the statement in context.

[Dogmeat]

Can someone produce Obama's stance on this exactly. It would be helpful to know what exactly he is talking about when he says 75K would be considered rich...

I just want to see the statement in context.

Here ya go ...

"Da white man make mo' money dan da black man! Da white man save da black man! Da black man fight da white man! Da black man say da white man now owe da black man! Cuz dey is dis many white man makin' dis much money y0! If we sayz ... "HEY! KrakkaZ! Yall that be makin dis much monieZ iz now gonna givta da black man dis much, cuz dis be where da most white man is making dis much monieZ, ifs we taxes da white man makin diz much, we da black man, gonna get even mo money dan if we taxez da white man makin mo' o' less', cuz dis where da most white man make da money! We show all dem dam KrakkaZ!"

Hope this helps

[FORSAKENR320]

you make my brain hurt

[Spectatrix]

70k is not rich for a family of four. I make 70k and I'm doing damn well for myself, but I'm also single and frugal. But, like Dogmeat said, if I were supporting three other people on that, I would be stretched quite thin.