Enough With The Crying Over The "Tax Hike" On People Making $250K A Year

[Yavin4]

Enough! What about the other Americans are hurting and have been hurting from Bush's policies.

What about the military families are falling apart because of Bush's botched wars?

What about the working class people have seen their wages fall further and further behind the cost of living?

What about the people in IT and mfg. have seen their entire careers moved to low cost labor nations?

What about the poor who have fallen completely off the radar?

What about the people who have lost their healthcare or are getting crappy HMO care from their jobs?

What about these people?


We're supposed to cry because the top marginal rate is returning to Clinton era levels? We're supposed to cry for the people at the top who've taken literally all of the wealth generated by our increased productivity? We're supposed to cry for them?

As for the two career professional families, there are still plenty of tax deductions that they can take that will get them around this "hike".

ENOUGH!

[book_worm]

1. I think it was Friday night CBS News had a sob piece about some guy who makes

$250,000 or a bit more on their telecast--and how hard it will hit him when his tax bracket goes from 36% yo 39%!! Come on!

[MercutioATC]

3. And remember, that 3% hike is only on income above $250k.

If somebody makes $275k, only the last $25k is taxed at the higher rate.

[geckosfeet]

8. Did not know that little nugget. Personally - I think it should be on 100% of the 250k.

[MercutioATC]

23. Yeah, THAT would do a lot to encourage productivity...

I don't think we should even consider anything over 2/3 at ANY income level.

Would YOU work beyond a certain point knowing that you'd get nothing for your efforts?

[Yavin4]

26. It's Called Deductions

If you invest in a new business, buy municipal bonds, etc. You would get a deduction.

[MercutioATC]

27. Ok, so you're not talking about net tax rate.

There are honestly some here who believe that net tax above a certain amount should be 90%+.

[geckosfeet]

47. No - I mean the full tax rate on 100% of the 250k.

[MercutioATC]

54. Then I ask again...would YOU work for nothing?

What purpose would a 100% tax at ANY income level serve?

[davekriss]

57. Mercutio, I believe the poster is saying...

...subject the full $250,000 ($275,000) to the 39.6% FIT, not tax it at 100%.

[mainer]

62. Then no one would want to earn more than $250,000

Earn a penny more, and you'd get penalized.

[davekriss]

67. You are wrong

If I earned $250,000 yesterday, but was offered a raise to $255,000, I'd certainly take it. I'd pay 3.6% more in taxes on that $5,000 this year as compared to last, or a whopping $180 more in taxes. The $180 increment in taxes is background noise against $5,000, it would have absolutely zero impact on my motivation.

I suppose you perceive something sour grapey in the $5,000 that forces you to pay incrementaly $180 more in taxes and would turn down the raise? Yea, right!

[mainer]

70. I was responding to the "100%" post above

referring to the proposition that EVERYTHING would suddenly be taxed at the higher rate if you go from $250,00 to $251,000.

What it would mean is this:

If at $250,000, let's say you'd be taxed at 35%. Your tax would be $87,500.

But if at $251,000 your tax suddenly jumped to 39%, and the entire amount was taxed at that rate, your tax payment would suddenly be $97,900. Even though you only earned $1,000 more.

I was trying to point out that taxing the full earnings at a higher tax rate wouldn't make sense. (Instead, it should be that extra $1,000 in earnings that would be subject to the higher rate.)
Otherwise, no one in their right mind would WANT to earn $251,000.

[davekriss]

73. OK, yes, to suddenly trigger a retroactive rate on the income

below $250k would be hugely punitive, I agree.

[geckosfeet]

74. And when you make $26k more than $250k your taxes paid will effectively

be 39% of $250k.

But I do take your point. I should make less to reduce my taxes.

Brilliant.

[TBF]

82. Why would that be a problem? Maybe a little equality would be a good thing for people. nt

[mainer]

87. I'd like my brain surgeon to be paid a little more than that

Because I hope he'd be worth it.

If everyone's paid the same max, then how would you reward extraordinary talent and effort?

[TBF]

88. How would you define "extraordinary" talent and effort? It's all very

subjective, is it not? Perhaps you need a really good brain surgeon, and I am more concerned that my auto mechanic is top notch so he doesn't accidentally cause a problem that could lead to a fatal accident.

I just don't find competition all that desirable.

[mainer]

89. Talent and effort are ALL VERY "subjective"?!!

Oh, I think you can think of a few objective measurements of effort, can't you? Just one, puny little example? Like, for instance, how many widgets one makes in a day? How many pounds of blueberries one rakes in an hour?

Is it really so difficult to imagine that some people perform at a higher level than others, or put in a little more effort than others? Or are we all robots, equally interchangeable?

[TBF]

96. Obviously not robots - nor are some of us so much better than others.

At least that's my view, ymmv.

[n2doc]

95. What's wrong with that? n/t

[MercutioATC]

81. Ahhh...I get it.

...but that's not the way it works (thank god). :)

[geckosfeet]

63. No. 39% on 100% of the $250k. Yeah. I would do that. That nets a cool $153,500.

More than double my gross!

[dysfunctional press]

78. "Did not know that little nugget..." THAT'S one of our BIGGEST problems..

too many people don't understand the concept of marginal rates.

[davekriss]

55. Note that's $900 additional taxes per year

They'll have to scrimp and save to get by with $75 less per month.

Sickening, isn't it. Of course, if you're one of the robberbarons of the age, making $250,000,000, you'll have to pay $9 million more in taxes, but that's only on the income their team of highly trained tzx lawyers, accountants, and compensation committees didn't hide from fair taxation.

Cry me a river already. Like I really care. (Things get tough and can't feed our families? Eat the rich, I say.)

[Fla Dem]

92. Is the hike on adjusted gross income? If so their actual income is

probably much more before all the deductions.

[Ikonoklast]

6. One less Starbucks latte a day.

I weep for the monied class.

[tridim]

31. He is welcome to take a pay cut to avoid the new taxes.

[AndyA]

2. I agree, people act like things were just awful during the Clinton years.

From what I recall, America was more prosperous than it had been at any other like time in its history. People who make over $250,000 should be thankful that they do, and understand that their increased taxes will be less of a struggle for them than for most Americans.

Americans have turned into a selfish lot. The "me first, you go to hell" attitude has done much to contribute to our current problems.

Pay up and shut up, I say.

[Yavin4]

4. And, It's The Primary Reason We're In This Mess

Increased selfishness leads to reckless speculation. The housing industry became the largest get rich quick scheme in history.

[safeinOhio]

28. We had steady growth and

saw the growth of the middle class through the 50s and early 60s. The top rate then was 93%.

[gratuitous]

5. Enough, indeed

Someone making $255,000 a year would be liable for an additional tax bite of . . . brace yourself . . . sitting down? . . . get the smelling salts ready . . . one hundred fifty dollars!

Gosh, I should have warned folks to have a friend or relative standing by to catch them when they fainted.

[Yavin4]

7. The Guy Who Lost His Limbs In Iraq Is Being Selfish

He should gladly forgo his VA medical care so that the John Thains of the world can buy a $1,400 trash can.

[dkf]

9. I bet there are a lot of people who make $250k a year who spend everything they

make and mostly have fixed payments, like their mortgage and their cars, private school or student loans, etc.

Like it or not, this means pretty big changes for them.

Why can't we just call this a sacrifice for everyone and have some sympathy? Instead it seems like we are gloating at their pain.

[w4rma]

13. Are you kidding? Seriously? That's the dumbest post I've read in a while.

It means a less expensive vacation and that's it. Or it means they ask their boss for a raise to make up the difference. If they are making 250K, then they must be indispensable to their job.

[NNN0LHI]

19. I am sure its sarcasm

Has to be.

Don

[remember2000forever]

22. I don't think that post was sarcasm at all.

[TBF]

32. It's not a stupid post - it's very accurate. Our income is decent, but

we don't have the inherited wealth that really makes a difference. We have our kids in a great public school, and we may not have a lot left over, but that's mainly due to paying student loans.

The thing is that everything is much more expensive proportionally than it was in the 50's or 60's. I've seen alot of data to indicate that those dollars just aren't stretching like they used to.

I will agree with your basic idea though - cutting back on vacations, private schools, and large houses is not going to hurt anyone.

Even though you're more likely looking at the 2-earner professional families rather than the seriously rich people, they are still top 3-5% in terms of income and should be willing to sacrifice to help the millions who are suffering.

And don't even get me started on people making over 500K and/or with net worth over a million. They can throw all the tea parties they want, I have absolutely no sympathy.

[dkf]

33. You think anyone is getting a raise now?

hahahaha!

A couple with a $1 million dollar house, 2 Audi A6s and 2 kids in private school would break down like this...

$80,000 for the mortgage (based on a jumbo loan @ 7%)
$25,670 for their cars (5 years @ 5%)
$73,354 in federal taxes (based on 1999 tax table)
$8,170 in social security and medicare hospital
$3,590 in Honolulu property tax
$33,500 to send 2 kids to Punahou (same school as our Prez)

I've just spent $245,267 of their $250,000 income and I didn't even pay for their health insurance.

On edit: A $1,000,000 house here isn't a mansion or anything. Our median home is still $650,000 even in this downturn, for a single wall redwood house maybe 1200 sq feet built in the 70s.

[Yavin4]

35. Rebuttal

You omitted the various forms of tax deductions such as the interest on that $80,000 mortgage, tax breaks for dependents, the property tax, loss on investments, etc.

The effective tax would be much, much lower than $73,354.

[dkf]

53. I don't get to do my taxes that way :(

Ok, lets say we deduct $69k in interest, $25k for a 401k, $12k for health insurance and how much for the kids? 10k? Really I have no idea on that one. And these people have no $ for charity.

That would put their taxes at 31k, their state tax at 16k, but we increase the expenses by the 25k for the 401k and add 12k for health insurance.

That leaves 14k a year for food, car insurance, gas, parking (for 2 cars that could be expensive!), clothes, broadband/cable/cell/data, etc.

But seriously, you'd probably need quicken or something to figure this all out.

[geckosfeet]

50. 2 Audis. Gimme a break. I have 97 Accord. Will drive it until it dies.

Been paid for since 2000. Even if they have two of them that saves them $25,000 a year.

$33,500 tuition - forget it. Public schools. Another $33,000.

I just saved them $58,000 a year using .01% of my brain.

Gimme a break.

[dkf]

56. The school system in Hawaii isn't so great.

And if you're in certain areas, your kids may grow up speaking pidgin english. eh Brah! You can tell Obama went to a better school because he has no clue how to do pidgin english. I'm very bad at it too.

I'm happy your Honda is still working for you. At 12 years old my Integra started giving me real problems. The oil light was permanently on due to a short in the panel. That wasn't worth fixing. My suspension would make noises every time I put something heavy in the back or had passengers. My guy thought it was pretty pathetic, so I bought a slightly used Infiniti which I love and will also drive into the ground.

But I can't see people being happy explaining why they had to sell their Audi or pull their kids out of school.

[geckosfeet]

60. No one is asking them to be happy about it. It's called sacrifice. You do

it cause it is the right thing to do.

[dkf]

66. Exactly my point!!!! Thank you!

We should call it a sacrifice and feel bad for everyone who is going to be pinched.

Some people are gleeful about this. Not nice.

[davekriss]

69. First of all. somebody earning $250k a year and who is not...

..saving substantially is clearly living beyond their means. It does not matter that the "means" are vastly more expensive in Hawaii than in South Dakota. If raising the maximum FIT rate from 36% to 39.6% punishes the reckless, so be it; the prudent will hardly notice it while the many will benefit from it. Easy moral choice here.

[dkf]

76. They are like all the other crazy people who are living beyond their means.

Its the American condition.

And $250k isn't a somebody, its a married couple, so its $125k each.

[noamnety]

21. Sorry, that's crap.

People who make half that amount pay mortgages and car payments, and college tuition without going broke. People who make a quarter of that amount do as well, though it's more of a struggle.

They may have to downsize to something that's not a million dollar home (which I highly doubt! The impact of the return to clinton tax rates isn't all that much) - but it's crap to ask that people who've been living in small apartments for all their lives should have to feel sympathy for someone who has to downsize from a million dollar home to a 500,000 dollar home.

This reminds me of that arrogant rich-snob woman who wrote the article about the horrors of losing some of her investments - and having to *gasp* let her chauffeur go, and ride the subway with the masses. She somehow expected that the masses would have sympathy and understand her pain in having to be in their presence for a small portion of her day.

[bullimiami]

10. what percentage of even 2 professional career families do you think have over 250K in taxable income

[FormerDittoHead]

11. Don't you understand? Those who make under $250k are lazy bums! My essay on luck.

The problem with the people who've won life's lottery is that they don't realize how lucky they've been.

SURE they've worked and sacrified, blaw, blaw. Guess what. WE ALL HAVE.

There are people who are smart and hard working who just AREN'T LUCKY ENOUGH to have the right parents, live in the right school district, have the right friends, born with healthy genes, etc.

Get this: the purpose of society is *NOT* TO CREATE AN ECONOMY WHICH REWARDS THE LUCKY ONES AT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT POSSIBLE.

THE WHOLE FUCKING PURPOSE OF A "SOCIETY" IS TO MITIGATE LUCK. If there are those in need... WE HELP THEM. And, ahem, those who are best able to help are *EXPECTED* to help more than others.

We TRIED personal generosity and the free market. THAT DOESN'T WORK.

[TahitiNut]

29. Yup. To many folks seem to get the tail and the dog mixed up.

An economic system has only one morally legitimate objective: justice across the entire social spectrum. When the working class is robbed of the wealth it creates through its labors in order to enrich the ownership class, that's an injustice. It was an injustice when the ownership class consisted of "royals" and it is an injustice when the privatization of capital gave "non-royals" a piece of the action (i.e capitalism).

Much is made of the (supposedly innate) value of the means of production through which the ownership class measures AND rationalizes their aggregation of wealth. It must be fully and completely realized that the value of the means of production is entirely and totally dependent upon the very existence of labor -- labor which realizes the potential of that capital asset and achieves the production -- labor without whom that capital asset is nothing but arid land or an abandoned factory with no market value whatsoever.

For ages, the working class has produced more than twice as much it requires for daily survival ... and has, like the squirrel, found ways to cache the excess (after sharing with dependents and the disenfrancised) in preparation for winter and times of stress. When the watchmen of the warehouses (bankers and 'investment' class) hijack the contents for their own appetites and greed, the social contract is broken and justice is called for.

[minavasht]

45. Hm...

Luck?

One stays at school, the other one drops out (his teachers didn't motivate him and did not make it interesting for him).
One works two part-time jobs and goes to college full-time, the other one works at BK and his girlfriend is pregnant with their second child. Both spend most of their income on pot. His mother is raising the first child.
One has 1 speeding ticket, the other one has a suspended license, 1 arrest and a warrant (that county will not extradite, so he is cool as long as he stays away).
These two are real people.
Luck has everything to do with it, right?
All those doctors with funny names that you see at the hospital are just lucky, right?
Unless you are physically or mentally ill, luck has nothing to do with your wealth.
Sitting on your bottom and taking responsibility for your actions does.
It is that simple.

[FormerDittoHead]

49. I can tell you what else is simple. Your thinking. n/t

Please quote me where I say luck has EVERYTHING to do with it.

I will quote you before you edit it:
>"Unless you are physically or mentally ill, luck has nothing to do with your wealth."

...and leave it at that.

[minavasht]

85. Uh,

where do I say that you said that luck has everything to do with it?
BTW, without getting too detailed, can you elaborate on how luck was involved in your live?
I am not picking on you, I really want to know.

[geckosfeet]

51. Right. That's the argument. Everyone who is poor is a crimminal and a dropout.

[minavasht]

86. Nope,

never said that.
But everybody who is healthy and poor has only one person to blame - himself.

[Greyhound]

68. I swear to Gaia, there are boiler rooms all over Florida churning this crap out

over and over and over again.

Enjoy your stay

[mainer]

71. I actually find your statement kind of scary.

"the purpose of society is *NOT* TO CREATE AN ECONOMY WHICH REWARDS THE LUCKY ONES AT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT POSSIBLE.

THE WHOLE FUCKING PURPOSE OF A "SOCIETY" IS TO MITIGATE LUCK. "

Translation (?): "The purpose of society is to pull everyone down to the same mediocre level so we can all suffer equally."

[remember2000forever]

12. What About The College Kids Who Will Be Living At Home......

in their parent's basements after graduation.

[bikebloke]

14. Off with their heads!

During the Clinton years, I worked in a bank auditing loans. I saw plenty of tax returns of people earning $300,00 to $500,00 a year. I was earning a smidgen more than minimum wage and paying more taxes than them. Not percentage, but dollars.

[Fire1]

15. I don't agree with it, but I 'understand' it, like I understand the

the concept of 'greed.' What I DON'T understand is poverty stricken, unemployed, middle income freepers with barely a 'pot' nor 'a window,' screaming against tax hikes for people that haven't given them a damned thing. Trickle down, my ass. This boggles the mind!:crazy:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

16. You know what I find fascinating in all this?

People who make relative pittances are the ones screaming most loudly about a 3% tax hike on a class of people blessed by the fruits of the American economy and who wouldn't piss up the ass of the one-fodder-units if their guts were on fire.

Willing victims of abuse. Stockholm syndrome. Serfs.

[davekriss]

65. I noticed that too. Interesting (as you say, Stockholm Syndrome) nt

[Vinca]

17. And enough about the tax hike causing small business to pay more.

If a small business happens to net over $250,000 a year, they'll be making out like bandits because they won't be footing the bill for healthcare.

[Fire1]

18. Indeed! Any business with profits exceeding 250k is no longer

a 'small' business.

[lib2DaBone]

20. I'd like to know where these $250K-A-Year jobs are?

I know people with a Masters Degree that can't find a job for $25K-A-year.

[MercutioATC]

24. That's per family....$125k per person for a couple.

There are definitely $125k/year jobs out there.

[Yavin4]

25. The $250K Income Doesn't Necessarily Come From Jobs, per se.

It can come from return on investments, interest payments, rents on assets, etc.

[TBF]

34. Lawyers, doctors, and investment bankers for the most part -

and dual-earner professional couples. Most likely in private firms, you're not going to find most of these folks in government jobs unless it's the very top people of certain agencies. Just having a degree doesn't mean squat (I should know!), you've got to have certain degrees in particular industries, and they are from the top-ranked schools.

I'm not saying they SHOULD make that much - just telling you who they are since you asked.

[rvablue]

79. Add to that those in pharmaceutical and insurance sales. And - while not anymore - realtors. n/t

[tomp]

30. the super-rich should be taxed super-ly.

that's the real solution.

[minavasht]

36. I guess you don't make 250k a year?

How would YOU react if your taxes were raised?

[BlooInBloo]

37. At that level of income? I'd be fine with it. Just fine.

[minavasht]

83. That's easy

I am talking about raising your taxes now. With your current income.
After all, we all have to contribute, right? They get to keep less of THEIR money, it's only fair everybody else to do the same thing, right?
Don't you think that they work hard? Don't you think that they deserve to do as they please with the fruits of their work? Suddenly it is OK for you to decide how much they should make?
How would you react if somebody came and told you that you can live without high-speed internet? You can easily pay an extra $150 in taxes every year - all you have to do is go back to dial-up and.
Why don't you do it?

[Bill McBlueState]

97. I wouldn't mind paying more tax if required

Sometimes tax rates should go down; sometimes they should go up. Why is that considered such a radical concept?

[Yavin4]

38. I Live In NYC, The Most Expensive Place on Earth

If I made $250K, I'd be happier than a pig in shit, and I would not even care about the tax hike.

You can live quite well in NYC on $250K, taxes and all. Quite well.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. I live in Chicago, and I say the same

I also grew up in NYC, and we eked it out fairly poor, but never deprived.

The notion that an increase of 3% for income over $250,000 would cripple people is simply ludicrous. If that's the case, they were either very foolishly leveraged, or they live in a silly and unsustainable way.

I notice that the poster above uses the case of Hawaii, which is really a limit case that proves the rule. That said, plenty of people manage to live in Hawaii for well under $250,000 a year (the median household income is $63,746, for frack's sake).

[TBF]

39. Some people don't mind paying taxes. I know our taxable income

isn't quite at that level, but as long as we're employed (right now I'm home with the kids, but at times I've been working and made more than my husband), I feel we have a duty to help others.

I will argue on how it should be spent (that military budget could be axed by 90% as far as I'm concerned), but no I don't have a problem with paying.

[lukasahero]

52. We did at one point

and we were fully on board with proposed tax hikes.

"Those to whom much is given, much is expected."

[killbotfactory]

72. Try making a tenth of that and living through price increases across the board

And then realize just how wealthy you are when you make around 250k a year and only have to suffer a tax increase on income ABOVE that much.

[minavasht]

84. I actualy did for a long time

[rvablue]

80. I don't make that, but if I did I would have ZERO issue with my taxes going up by 3%

which is what is going to happen under Obama's plan.

With all that money -- which I'm assuming you make -- you obvioulsy don't feel the collective responsibility to help out your country and fellow man during bad times that I would feel if I was blessed to be in that forutnate position. It's all about ME!, ME!, ME!, I guess.....

[Lorien]

91. Having once made six figures I already know how to react; spend more

more deductions lower your taxes. Better for the economy, better for your bottom line. As I mentioned downthread; I once made out a $38,000 check to the IRS-and that was ON TOP OF quarterly taxes that I already paid at the 39% tax rate. How did I feel about that? Blessed! I was making so much money that my taxes were larger than most people's yearly incomes-so what the hell did I have to complain about? I was very comfortable, I had more than I needed, I took lots of deductions (which ultimately lowered my tax rate)-and that's something that most regular middle and lower class people can't do. Did I work hard for my money? of course. Am I working harder now for far, far less? Indeed! The hardest working people in America are most often the most poorly paid people in America. Ending up with a six figure income takes hard work, sure, but it also takes luck, timing, and the right connections. Once a person makes it into that bracket they need to feel grateful and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's gladly. As a formerly comfortable American, I know all too well how easily it can all be lost. My taxes are very low now, and I'm not at all happy about that.

[bvar22]

40. Never EVER use the Republican Frame.

This is NOT a "Tax Hike".

It IS a "Repeal of the BUSH Tax Cut"..... or Letting the Bush Tax Cut for the Wealthy expire".

[TBF]

41. Very good point. And there should be a paragraph on capital gains as well.

That's where the seriously wealthy cleaned up during the last 8 years.

[Motown_Johnny]

42. Honestly, I think the discussion helps us. The more air time the people defending ......

the top 5% get the more the lower 95% get sick of it (kinda like you are now).

Let the Repukes be the party of the 5%. I am fine with that. We are the party of the 95%. Plus the people like Warren Buffet who make tons of money but also advocate raising taxes on the wealthy.


It's a good thing. Enjoy it while you can.

[elizfeelinggreat]

75. I do, too!

I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to hear them arguing about it because the 95% figure is almost always part of the discussion.

They almost sound like this: "95% will have no tax hike, waaaahhhhh!!!"

[Odin2005]

44. The Idiots will have to be dragged into the New Progressive Era kicking and screaming.

They are seriously loosing it, comparing Obama to Lenin because he's letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

[LWolf]

46. You mean, stop crying over hiking taxes on the top 1.5%?

Pay attention to the other 98.5% of the population?

At least, according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States#Top_percentiles

There may be other numbers out there, but I have to ask:

Why aren't you more concerned with the 1.5% minority than you are with the rest of the rabble?

:sarcasm:, for those who need to see it.

[geckosfeet]

48. This what I do not get. 90%+ of us are getting tax REDUCTIONS! Yet somehow

there are people among us who think that is wrong, and want to be taxed at a higher rate, and that people making over $250k should be taxed at a lower rate.

They seem to want their taxes increased. Do they just not get it? Are they that dense? Are they that blinded by their ideological fears and hate? How do you get through to people like this?

[LWolf]

59. Ya got me.

:shrug:

[cascadiance]

58. One thing that needs to be clarified... $250k for families or individuals?

I think many here are talking about the $250k limit as it applies to families. So what limit applies to individuals, I've heard of limits any where from $150k to $250k. It should be clear where the dividing line is for individuals. $250k might be a bit unfair if the same limit applies to families. Might get a lot of families filing separately if that is the case and not jointly. As for individuals. They hear the $250k promise and then suddenly if they are $150k or more in a place like New York City, that's quite a different expectation compared to what perhaps is being planned. Obama needs to clarify what limit applies to both categories of tax payers...

Now the right wing is trying to make hay of Biden making comments on the tax cut being targeted at those making less than $150k. Again, need to clarify whether that's families or individuals. And also to fend off the right wing critique here, note that the commitment of not raising taxes on families making over $250k is consistent with those making less than $150k getting a tax cut if those making between $150k and $250k don't see any changes to their taxes.

Finally, just like what happened in that piss poor debate, there was an attempt to get Obama to admit that there would be a tax hike if the payroll tax cap were removed from te current limit of $102k (which would increase taxes on those making between $102k and $250k) and the right wing continues to try and go after this.

Now there was talk by both Clinton and Obama about having a "donut hole" between $102k and $250k so that it would only be people making more than $250k that would get hit with added payroll tax if the cap was removed. That might effectively deal with this right wing argument, but not in as fair a way as it could be. There would be a simpler way to remove the cap on payroll tax and still stay within the $250k commitment. It goes like this:

- update the payroll tax rate so that the actual dollar amount deducted for the current cap of $102k yields the same amount for a cap of $250k. That way, a person/family making $250k who is paying payroll taxes on their first $102k now would see no difference in the amount they're paying when the cap is removed and they are paying taxes as a percentage of their $250k salary instead of a percentage of their first $102k.
- Everyone under $250k in effect gets a tax cut on payroll taxes. Everyone above it gets taxed more.
- You have a simple flat tax rate that applies *equally* to everyone. A "donut hole" approach is unfair to those making $102k who in effect are paying the same amount of taxes that those making $250k are paying. Why is that fair? And the donut hole doesn't provide for a tax cut for anyone.
- Lowering the tax rate on those making under $250k might in fact lower the tax revenue from payroll tax in that segment, but those making above $250k paying a flat rate with no cap should still yield far more revenue than the present system yields and I would think provide solvency.
- By lowering the effective tax rate on everyone (that both companies and individuals have to bear), and raising significantly the liabilities of payroll tax of those over $250k, it makes it that much harder for companies to justify layoffs of those making less than $250k versus their very expensive CEOs who become that much more of a liability to the company's bottom line than those at the lower end of their salary tiers who become less of a liability. Might make layoffs less "bottom centric" if this gets put into effect.

[Mz Pip]

61. I wish we made $250,000 a year

I'd gladly pay more taxes if I could be in that tax bracket.

[WhiteTara]

64. I'd be happy to pay the taxes

just let me have $250K a year!!!

[donheld]

77. agreed

[Lorien]

90. As someone who had a nice six figure income in the Clinton era, I agree!

I remember back around 1997 writing out a check to the IRS for around $38,000. I happily put it into my envelope with my tax return for the year. Why "happily"? Because I was making so much money that I owed $38,000 on top of a couple of quarterly payments I had already sent in! WTF was there to complain about? A giant tax bill means YOU'VE DONE WELL FOR YOURSELF.They can bitch all they want about a 39% tax rate; it doesn't hurt when you have the income that comes along with it. You know what will lower their taxes? Spending money! Buy new office equipment. Hire maids. Hire an assistant. Take a few business trips. Take your clients out to lunch. It's good for the economy and good for their bottom line. Nobody ACTUALLY pays 39%; everyone has enough deductions that it always comes down to 25% or so, so I won't give them one sliver of sympathy. My yearly take home pay is now far less than what I once paid it taxes-so NOW I've got something to complain about!

I think all these "comfortable" Americans need a little perspective.

[JerseygirlCT]

93. I agree

And we're perhaps aspiring to be in that group. People making good money ought to be paying their share. What's awful is that Bush's lopsided cuts to the wealthy have now created the impression that there's something punitive in restoring the old rates from the (successful) Clinton era.

They are not being punished; an unequal and unworkable system is being adjusted back to some sanity.

We're not talking 50%, 60% or higher rates. We're talking a slight increase. It makes perfect sense.

[Ganja Ninja]

94. If they want lower taxes then they need to keep all Americans working

and earning a decent wage. This is what happens when you try to break the labor movement and kill wages and benefits for the poor and middle class. The tax burden has to be shifted to the wealthier people. Don't like it? Blame the Republicans

[steelmania75]

98. In this kind of crisis, we need to increase taxes above the Clinton levels