How Many On These Threads Make the 250 M Cuttoff

[rayboyusmc]

I am interested to see how many if any would be hit by taking the taxes back to what they were before Reagan and then Bush lowered the taxes on the richer folks.

Also someone post the data on how much the rich acutally pay percentage wise when they get done using their tax lawyers and loopholes.

Remember, most of the politicians who favor or oppose this move make this kind of money.

Make that 250 thousand.

 

[del]

i make much less than $250 million a year. i don't think you'll find many here that don't.

 

[editec]

I'm just a tad short of that mark.

 

[del]

I'm just a tad short of that mark.

a couple more coke cans oughta do it for me

 

[Toro]

i make much less than $250 million a year. i don't think you'll find many here that don't.

"M" means thousand. "MM" means million.

He's asking about the $250k threshold for tax increases.

 

[del]

i make much less than $250 million a year. i don't think you'll find many here that don't.

"M" means thousand. "MM" means million.

He's asking about the $250k threshold for tax increases.

ah, i've laways used k and m. live and learn.

 

[Bern80]

I am interested to see how many if any would be hit by taking the taxes back to what they were before Reagan and then Bush lowered the taxes on the richer folks.

Significantly less. Unlike you narrow minded, 'it doesn't effect me' folks some of us making far less than that still see the problems with it. First those people that make over 250k, they employ other people. You can argue all you like about what they will or won't do in their position but the FACT is if they have less money they CAN'T hire as many people, invest in as mich technology, or give raises.

This is the classic argument of people with no integrity whatsoever. The 'as long as it's not me' schtick. That somehow as long as an unfairness doesn't affect me I should not have a problem with it.

This is kind of ridiculous premise too. Do you understand what you're really arguing, here? If you have a problem with people limiting their tax burden the opposite would be that you want people to actually find ways to give government as much money as possible. Our government has zero fiscal constraint, maybe the only way they will spend less is if we give them less. I have zero problem with someone, ANYONE, using as many tax breaks as they can.

Also someone post the data on how much the rich acutally pay percentage wise when they get done using their tax lawyers and loopholes.

With more money, comes more options in the simplest terms. More options to invest in assetts. Assetts bring in money. Stock is an assett for example. Just as an example say you bought stock in something and it doubled. Now there you can say you made lot of money. There's double what you put in waiting for you to take out. But it can't be counted as income until you do just that and thus it can't be taxed. The government can't tax what you dont' physically have. That's what wealthy people do, they understand money and are very good at keeping their realized income low. These are what you call tax loopholes.

The other ridiculous part about this argument goes back to your first sentence. Wouldn't all of us like to be in that position? But I guess i guy like you ray whos morals can change with which ever way the wind blows you would of course then be against all tax breaks of you were in the position to take them, right?

 

[rayboyusmc]

This is the classic argument of people with no integrity whatsoever. The 'as long as it's not me' schtick. That somehow as long as an unfairness doesn't affect me I should not have a problem with it.[/QUOTE]

Where did I post this? Or did you just make it up?

But I guess i guy like you ray whos morals can change with which ever way the wind blows you would of course then be against all tax breaks of you were in the position to take them, right?

My morals change whichever way the wind blows? You have proof or is this more shit from you post? I pay the taxes that I am required to, buttwipe. If I made more, I would pay more. When Reagan changed them when I was still in the military, I paid that also.

Bern, you are a nasty old fart who doesn't like folks who don't agree with yoo.

Please post where I made that remark you attribute to me and its context. I am waiting to see where that came from.

 

[sealybobo]

I am interested to see how many if any would be hit by taking the taxes back to what they were before Reagan and then Bush lowered the taxes on the richer folks.

Significantly less. Unlike you narrow minded, 'it doesn't effect me' folks some of us making far less than that still see the problems with it. First those people that make over 250k, they employ other people. You can argue all you like about what they will or won't do in their position but the FACT is if they have less money they CAN'T hire as many people, invest in as mich technology, or give raises.

This is the classic argument of people with no integrity whatsoever. The 'as long as it's not me' schtick. That somehow as long as an unfairness doesn't affect me I should not have a problem with it.

This is kind of ridiculous premise too. Do you understand what you're really arguing, here? If you have a problem with people limiting their tax burden the opposite would be that you want people to actually find ways to give government as much money as possible. Our government has zero fiscal constraint, maybe the only way they will spend less is if we give them less. I have zero problem with someone, ANYONE, using as many tax breaks as they can.

Also someone post the data on how much the rich acutally pay percentage wise when they get done using their tax lawyers and loopholes.

With more money, comes more options in the simplest terms. More options to invest in assetts. Assetts bring in money. Stock is an assett for example. Just as an example say you bought stock in something and it doubled. Now there you can say you made lot of money. There's double what you put in waiting for you to take out. But it can't be counted as income until you do just that and thus it can't be taxed. The government can't tax what you dont' physically have. That's what wealthy people do, they understand money and are very good at keeping their realized income low. These are what you call tax loopholes.

The other ridiculous part about this argument goes back to your first sentence. Wouldn't all of us like to be in that position? But I guess i guy like you ray whos morals can change with which ever way the wind blows you would of course then be against all tax breaks of you were in the position to take them, right?

What if by taxing the filthy rich, the treasury fills back up and instead of the debt getting bigger, it gets smaller? Since the politicians won't stop spending, then we should pay for what we spend. You can't suggest we pay more, can you?

And it isn't like Donald Trump is going to hire one more person if I give him a big tax break. He'll only hire more people if the economy is booming and a lot of people are buying homes. So maybe if we put things back to the way they were and end the Bush tax breaks, things will get better. They sure didn't help.

And I don't mind giving certain corporate tax breaks for hiring people. Just not a special tax that goes to the rich. Clearly we need the money.

And besides, I think with the UBS story and with the "most american companies pay zero taxes" stories we have heard this year and last year, I don't think the rich are paying nearly as much as they should be. They're dodging them left and right. Some say they don't pay any taxes. Only we pay taxes. Why do you not believe Leona Helmsley? Don't be a sucker.

 

[sealybobo]

And funny the rich didn't feel sorry for people that made $30K and were paying $4 a gallon, so why should they feel sorry for people that make $250K?

 

[Truthmatters]

Not even half that for me.


When you have money you can make money in any market.

Its time for the wealthy to kick in their share since they have had a decade of great profits from us.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Despite what Burn says, I don't see anyone paying anymore taxes than they should by law.

My comment was to point out when some say the rich bear so great a burden, I would like to see the data that shows that.

I am not yet halfway there to the 250 k mark. Probably will retire long before that.

If I do, however, Burn, I will pay the extra taxes just like Obama will have to.

 

[Bern80]

Where did I post this? Or did you just make it up?

Get honest for a second would ya. It comes directly from the title of this thread. Why else would anyone ask that question if not to be suggesting that if you don't make that kind of money you shouldn't care?

My morals change whichever way the wind blows? You have proof or is this more shit from you post? I pay the taxes that I am required to, buttwipe. If I made more, I would pay more. When Reagan changed them when I was still in the military, I paid that also.

See above. As to paying the taxes you are required to pay. Uh, that's what everyone does Ray. Otherwise they're breaking the law. But I'm certainly not going to turn a blind eye to making my tax liability as soon as possible. Spending money you don't have to spend is stupid no matter what your income is.

Bern, you are a nasty old fart who doesn't like folks who don't agree with yoo.

Chances are I'm younger than you actually. Certainly not old by any stretch.

 

[sealybobo]

Not even half that for me.


When you have money you can make money in any market.

Its time for the wealthy to kick in their share since they have had a decade of great profits from us.

But then they won't hire anyone!!!

And they'll pass the costs on to the consumer!!!!!!!

I wish someone would show me how rich people had it bad before Bush got into office. If they didn't have it bad, then explain to me why we gave them a tax break in the first place. Especially during a war. That's never been done before. Was Bush right to give tax breaks during a time when he was spending $10 billion a month in Iraq? Of course not.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I am interested to see how many if any would be hit by taking the taxes back to what they were before Reagan and then Bush lowered the taxes on the richer folks.

Also someone post the data on how much the rich acutally pay percentage wise when they get done using their tax lawyers and loopholes.

Remember, most of the politicians who favor or oppose this move make this kind of money.

Make that 250 thousand.

It wouldn't affect me.

 

[sealybobo]

Where did I post this? Or did you just make it up?

Get honest for a second would ya. It comes directly from the title of this thread. Why else would anyone ask that question if not to be suggesting that if you don't make that kind of money you shouldn't care?

My morals change whichever way the wind blows? You have proof or is this more shit from you post? I pay the taxes that I am required to, buttwipe. If I made more, I would pay more. When Reagan changed them when I was still in the military, I paid that also.

See above. As to paying the taxes you are required to pay. Uh, that's what everyone does Ray. Otherwise they're breaking the law. But I'm certainly not going to turn a blind eye to making my tax liability as soon as possible. Spending money you don't have to spend is stupid no matter what your income is.

Bern, you are a nasty old fart who doesn't like folks who don't agree with yoo.

Chances are I'm younger than you actually. Certainly not old by any stretch.

I'm going to have to disagree with Ray once here. Bern is not a bad guy. He's wrong as hell, but not a bad guy by any means.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I am interested to see how many if any would be hit by taking the taxes back to what they were before Reagan and then Bush lowered the taxes on the richer folks.

Also someone post the data on how much the rich acutally pay percentage wise when they get done using their tax lawyers and loopholes.

Remember, most of the politicians who favor or oppose this move make this kind of money.

Make that 250 thousand.

Yes, well...I'm having one of those "Joe the Plumber" moments. I'm right in the middle of the process of buying the contracts of two of my accounts. The combined revenue of these is just short of $250k/yr. Add in some web creation contracts and some security consulting and we're in the $250 - $300k /yr range. Not that I'm complaining. These are problems I like to have.

What will I do? I have a tax guy. I'll have him structure what I do so I won't incur the wrath of the Bama. I'll pay myself $60k and my web programmer (wife) $60k. We'll set up a nice fat, well funded retirement fund and I'll take the rest of what I need as draws on the business. The tax rate for those is the capital gains rate.

Hell, I might even get some stimulating at that rate!

 

[Bern80]

Despite what Burn says, I don't see anyone paying anymore taxes than they should by law.

My comment was to point out when some say the rich bear so great a burden, I would like to see the data that shows that.

Then where does the tax revenue come from? Cause the math doesn't work out unless the rich are kicking in a lot. Let's crunch some numbers shall we?

In 2007 the Fed had 2.7 trillion in tax revenue. So how are we gonna get to that number? Roughly 140 million people filed federal income tax returns last year and it is estimated that about 70% of the population makes less than 50k a year. 70% of 140 million is about 100 million. 100 million people makeing 50k a year or less would pay an avg say 20% of their income in payroll taxes. 20% of 50k is 10K times 100 million is 1 trillion. that is 37% of the tax revenuie collected. And that number is high (like, really high) because it assumed that everyone making under 50k paid payroll taxes, which they don't. So again where does the other 1.7 trillion or 60-70% of the revenue come from? There's only one other place the bulk of the tax burden can come from. It has to come from corporations and high income people paying a high rate of taxes.

 

[Harry Dresden]

i heard on one news channel, its people who make more than 250 K a year,get a tax hike....on another it was people who make less than 250K a year,no tax hike.....which is it?......a guy who makes 250 K a year wanted to know.....