Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's fine, but even you know that there is no marginal difference between 249,999 and 250,000...and in fact the small amount she'll end up paying in extra taxes won't put a dent in her lifestyle.1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.
I disagree. She simply has different values from you. Several of us have explained the benefits of working less because of higher tax rates. It's called the substitution effect, and anyone who's taken even a basic economics class will know it.
That's fine, but even you know that there is no marginal difference between 249,999 and 250,000...and in fact the small amount she'll end up paying in extra taxes won't put a dent in her lifestyle.1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.
I disagree. She simply has different values from you. Several of us have explained the benefits of working less because of higher tax rates. It's called the substitution effect, and anyone who's taken even a basic economics class will know it.
If anyone in Lafayette figures out who she is that's a different story. It would be easy enough to take some of her clients by making her out to have a poor work ethic.
Capitalists are like that.That's fine, but even you know that there is no marginal difference between 249,999 and 250,000...and in fact the small amount she'll end up paying in extra taxes won't put a dent in her lifestyle.I disagree. She simply has different values from you. Several of us have explained the benefits of working less because of higher tax rates. It's called the substitution effect, and anyone who's taken even a basic economics class will know it.
If anyone in Lafayette figures out who she is that's a different story. It would be easy enough to take some of her clients by making her out to have a poor work ethic.
you have a mean streak a mile wide..
I don't see why she cannot make a decision to work less, as long as she supports her family and pays her bills without some idiot liberal like Ravi wanting to "take her out for having a poor work ethic." typical DUmbazz behavior
That's fine, but even you know that there is no marginal difference between 249,999 and 250,000...and in fact the small amount she'll end up paying in extra taxes won't put a dent in her lifestyle.
If anyone in Lafayette figures out who she is that's a different story. It would be easy enough to take some of her clients by making her out to have a poor work ethic.
I don't see why she cannot make a decision to work less, as long as she supports her family and pays her bills without some idiot liberal like Ravi wanting to "take her out for having a poor work ethic." typical DUmbazz behavior
I think Ravi was just saying that she doesn't give much merit to the article in the OP which relies on quoting this one woman who happens to be a lawyer and some other guy who happens to be a dentist, saying they would probably choose to work less. At first glance they look foolish, IMO. I'd bet dollars to donuts neither of them have a clue about how their accountant handles their taxes and how Obama's plan will effect their bottom line.
I don't see why she cannot make a decision to work less, as long as she supports her family and pays her bills without some idiot liberal like Ravi wanting to "take her out for having a poor work ethic." typical DUmbazz behavior
I think Ravi was just saying that she doesn't give much merit to the article in the OP which relies on quoting this one woman who happens to be a lawyer and some other guy who happens to be a dentist, saying they would probably choose to work less. At first glance they look foolish, IMO. I'd bet dollars to donuts neither of them have a clue about how their accountant handles their taxes and how Obama's plan will effect their bottom line.
yeah, cause there is no class warfare going on and you dont want to PUNISH the richIt'd be nice if you'd quit lying, Oreo...but I guess it's pathological with you.Something I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet: the new tax rates aren't the only tax increase upper income earners are getting. Obama has also proposed exemption phase outs, something that was a complete disaster previously. So basically, he's going to give people exemptions (which are hard enough to find) and then take them away gradually depending on your income level. This is the exact opposite of making the tax code easier, and it's just another way to raise taxes on the rich.
This democrat congress & President is not only going to raise their taxes to 40%--they are going to jerk the personal deduction rug out from under their legs.
They are going to cap their mortgage interest rate deduction at 28%. A real blow to the housing industry as wealthy people build homes. A real blow to the entire economy as they invest in commercial properties, invest in businesse's & put their money into the economy stimulating the private sector in all.
Why the hate in this country against successful-hardworking people?
Don't Americans realise: There has never been a poor person that has hired another poor person.
AND it is a WIN WIN for the other businesses out there ready, willing, and able to make more than $250k and able to pick up the slack from the ones wanting the ''easier'' road, like this lawyer and dentist...I don't see why she cannot make a decision to work less, as long as she supports her family and pays her bills without some idiot liberal like Ravi wanting to "take her out for having a poor work ethic." typical DUmbazz behavior
I think Ravi was just saying that she doesn't give much merit to the article in the OP which relies on quoting this one woman who happens to be a lawyer and some other guy who happens to be a dentist, saying they would probably choose to work less. At first glance they look foolish, IMO. I'd bet dollars to donuts neither of them have a clue about how their accountant handles their taxes and how Obama's plan will effect their bottom line.
they don't look foolish to me,,, I see two benefits,, they get to "rebel" against paying higher taxes, and the get more stress free lesiure time,, sounds like a win win to me..
yeah, cause there is no class warfare going on and you dont want to PUNISH the richIt'd be nice if you'd quit lying, Oreo...but I guess it's pathological with you.This democrat congress & President is not only going to raise their taxes to 40%--they are going to jerk the personal deduction rug out from under their legs.
They are going to cap their mortgage interest rate deduction at 28%. A real blow to the housing industry as wealthy people build homes. A real blow to the entire economy as they invest in commercial properties, invest in businesse's & put their money into the economy stimulating the private sector in all.
Why the hate in this country against successful-hardworking people?
Don't Americans realise: There has never been a poor person that has hired another poor person.
To think people will work hard, so others can benefit isn't the stimulus that is likely to work:
ABC News: Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan
Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan
President Would Slap More Taxes on Those Who Make Over $250K to Fund Health Care
By EMILY FRIEDMAN
March 2, 2009
President Barack Obama's tax proposal which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.
A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.
So far, Obama's tax plan is being looked at skeptically by both Democrats and Republicans and therefore may not pass at all....
LOL! You people make me laugh. So much assuming.
btw, jsanders...it almost sounds like you're advocating for even higher taxes because that means people will work less therefore creating jobs for others.
LOL! You people make me laugh. So much assuming.
btw, jsanders...it almost sounds like you're advocating for even higher taxes because that means people will work less therefore creating jobs for others.
Wrong. I'm saying that every economical argument has a good and a bad side. I don't even mind higher tax rates, as long as the money earned is being spent wisely. This administration is not spending money wisely. They are literally taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. I would pay 40% of my income if I knew it was going to actually pay off the debt. This administration is not paying off the debt. They are subsidizing the lives of the poor, hoping that controlling the country will lead to an economical boom that will automatically reduce the debt. It's a ridiculous method of debt reduction. If you want to reduce the debt, PAY IT OFF. If you're going to earn more tax revenue, SPEND IT ON THE DEBT. Don't spend our income taxes on programs that only benefit those who don't even work to benefit themselves. Those people aren't even affected by the size of the debt nor the state of the economy. They get their government handouts no matter how piss poor things are. Those of us who actually work are affected by the economy, and we're the ones who have to pay off the debt. Yet all of our income taxes levied are going to benefit others.
and that's the truth too.LOL! You people make me laugh. So much assuming.
btw, jsanders...it almost sounds like you're advocating for even higher taxes because that means people will work less therefore creating jobs for others.
Wrong. I'm saying that every economical argument has a good and a bad side. I don't even mind higher tax rates, as long as the money earned is being spent wisely. This administration is not spending money wisely. They are literally taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. I would pay 40% of my income if I knew it was going to actually pay off the debt. This administration is not paying off the debt. They are subsidizing the lives of the poor, hoping that controlling the country will lead to an economical boom that will automatically reduce the debt. It's a ridiculous method of debt reduction. If you want to reduce the debt, PAY IT OFF. If you're going to earn more tax revenue, SPEND IT ON THE DEBT. Don't spend our income taxes on programs that only benefit those who don't even work to benefit themselves. Those people aren't even affected by the size of the debt nor the state of the economy. They get their government handouts no matter how piss poor things are. Those of us who actually work are affected by the economy, and we're the ones who have to pay off the debt. Yet all of our income taxes levied are going to benefit others.
What does one make of a nation that worships the rich who only make their money on the backs of the poor. "The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that social capital is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. On moral grounds, Simon added, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent. Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer
"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith
Well, what it is spent on is a different subject. But you are correct in saying that each argument has a good and bad side. So if this woman wants to work less, someone else will pick up the slack. I think that is a net benefit.LOL! You people make me laugh. So much assuming.
btw, jsanders...it almost sounds like you're advocating for even higher taxes because that means people will work less therefore creating jobs for others.
Wrong. I'm saying that every economical argument has a good and a bad side. I don't even mind higher tax rates, as long as the money earned is being spent wisely. This administration is not spending money wisely. They are literally taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. I would pay 40% of my income if I knew it was going to actually pay off the debt. This administration is not paying off the debt. They are subsidizing the lives of the poor, hoping that controlling the country will lead to an economical boom that will automatically reduce the debt. It's a ridiculous method of debt reduction. If you want to reduce the debt, PAY IT OFF. If you're going to earn more tax revenue, SPEND IT ON THE DEBT. Don't spend our income taxes on programs that only benefit those who don't even work to benefit themselves. Those people aren't even affected by the size of the debt nor the state of the economy. They get their government handouts no matter how piss poor things are. Those of us who actually work are affected by the economy, and we're the ones who have to pay off the debt. Yet all of our income taxes levied are going to benefit others.
Lazy buggers!LOL! You people make me laugh. So much assuming.
btw, jsanders...it almost sounds like you're advocating for even higher taxes because that means people will work less therefore creating jobs for others.
Wrong. I'm saying that every economical argument has a good and a bad side. I don't even mind higher tax rates, as long as the money earned is being spent wisely. This administration is not spending money wisely. They are literally taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. I would pay 40% of my income if I knew it was going to actually pay off the debt. This administration is not paying off the debt. They are subsidizing the lives of the poor, hoping that controlling the country will lead to an economical boom that will automatically reduce the debt. It's a ridiculous method of debt reduction. If you want to reduce the debt, PAY IT OFF. If you're going to earn more tax revenue, SPEND IT ON THE DEBT. Don't spend our income taxes on programs that only benefit those who don't even work to benefit themselves. Those people aren't even affected by the size of the debt nor the state of the economy. They get their government handouts no matter how piss poor things are. Those of us who actually work are affected by the economy, and we're the ones who have to pay off the debt. Yet all of our income taxes levied are going to benefit others.
FYI ....65% of the people on welfare now that are not working... are children.
