Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

[Luddly Neddite]

Gramps

Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

Maybe you've already answered this but who has ever said anything about "taxing just the rich"?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why? We have been cutting taxes for years without cuts to offset them. It would have been better to cut spending and then pass the savings on billionaires all these years but the republican policy of allegedly stimulative tax cuts and spending increases has exploded the deficit like nothing else has. It's time to get back some of that lost revenue since spending seems to have so much political inertia in both parties that cutting our way to deficit reduction is an impossibility.

The government is getting back all the revenue they "lost". Receipts are higher now than they were in 2007. Spending is the problem. Spending is the problem. Spending is the problem.

Really? So what do like that you are willing to cut? I can guess what you hate to spend on but the way this works is that everyone has to give something up. For example, how much defense spending are you willing part with? How much money for your state and district? How about that hospital or road project in your town? It does not matter if your congressman is dem or pub they are not going to shoot their own district in the foot. It's why I said that spending has it's own inertia and nothing will ever be cut deeply enough to make the slightest difference in the deficit. America likes the current level of spending, they just don't want to pay for it and putting it on the national credit card is just so damned easy.

At least you admit spending is the issue. That's a start.
We can start cutting by getting rid of everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constutition as an obligation or power of the Federal Government.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gramps

Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

Maybe you've already answered this but who has ever said anything about "taxing just the rich"?

Obama. And about a gazillion Democrats.

 

[occupied]

Zero spending cuts, none.

See, none of those tax cuts were preceded or accompanied by spending cuts so they were just deficit spending on people who really did not need it and had no intention of creating jobs, an expensive spending program that did not accomplish it's goals.

Who's money is it occupied?

I know when I get paid that taxes are taken out before I get it so that's a good question. I do not seem to get to play with my money all year and then are offered a wide variety of deductions to shelter it so a better question would be why is their money so precious and inviolable and mine so easily taken and so difficult to get back?

 

[The Rabbi]

See, none of those tax cuts were preceded or accompanied by spending cuts so they were just deficit spending on people who really did not need it and had no intention of creating jobs, an expensive spending program that did not accomplish it's goals.

Who's money is it occupied?

I know when I get paid that taxes are taken out before I get it so that's a good question. I do not seem to get to play with my money all year and then are offered a wide variety of deductions to shelter it so a better question would be why is their money so precious and inviolable and mine so easily taken and so difficult to get back?

Because "they" (whoever they are) had the balls to go out and start a business and be self-employed while you're stuck in a dead end job somewhere.

 

[Antares]

See, none of those tax cuts were preceded or accompanied by spending cuts so they were just deficit spending on people who really did not need it and had no intention of creating jobs, an expensive spending program that did not accomplish it's goals.

Who's money is it occupied?

I know when I get paid that taxes are taken out before I get it so that's a good question. I do not seem to get to play with my money all year and then are offered a wide variety of deductions to shelter it so a better question would be why is their money so precious and inviolable and mine so easily taken and so difficult to get back?

You didn't answer the question....the answer is most imortant

 

[occupied]

The government is getting back all the revenue they "lost". Receipts are higher now than they were in 2007. Spending is the problem. Spending is the problem. Spending is the problem.

Really? So what do like that you are willing to cut? I can guess what you hate to spend on but the way this works is that everyone has to give something up. For example, how much defense spending are you willing part with? How much money for your state and district? How about that hospital or road project in your town? It does not matter if your congressman is dem or pub they are not going to shoot their own district in the foot. It's why I said that spending has it's own inertia and nothing will ever be cut deeply enough to make the slightest difference in the deficit. America likes the current level of spending, they just don't want to pay for it and putting it on the national credit card is just so damned easy.

At least you admit spending is the issue. That's a start.
We can start cutting by getting rid of everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constutition as an obligation or power of the Federal Government.

Blind ideological solutions are both impossible to implement and recklessly damaging in their unintended consequences.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Everyone will continue to get the tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. Why is that so difficult for those on the right to understand? Eliminating the tax cuts to everyone is sure to slow the economy. That is so self evident only the willfully ignorant and the mendacious will question its veracity.

That is the first step on the road to deficit reduction.

Next, cut the home mortgage deduction on all but the primary residence;

Next, add a fee to all stock transactions of .10 cents;

next; eliminate the practice of 'riders' and make all bills to come out of the Congress and sent to the President's desk a single issue bill.

next; replace all federal fleets with hybrid or all electric vehicles by attrition; require all federal buildings to replace or upgrade roofs with solar panels; purchases of made in America units only.

next, invest in the repair, replacement and upgrade of our electrical grid;

next; take Marijuana off the Schedule I list and allow each state to regulate or outlaw it as they see fit. Doing so will allow for a reduction in the costs to the Criminal Justice System and provide a massive influx of revenue to the states currently going to the criminal enterprise - both foreign and domestic.

Really?

Should People Who Make $250,000 a Year Worry About Obama's Tax Proposals? - The Daily Beast

Megan McArdle is a special correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast covering business, economics, and public policy. A former senior editor at The Atlantic and writer for The Economist, Megan has a diverse work history including three small startups and a disaster recovery firm at Ground Zero.

Should People Who Make $250,000 a Year Worry About Obama's Tax Proposals?
by Megan McArdle Nov 20, 2012 11:51 AM EST
There are more wrinkles in the tax code than you think

Kevin Drum and Dave Weigel take off after rich people who don't understand that they only pay marginal tax rates on the extra dollars they earn above taxation thresholds. "This isn't true, of course. Obama is only proposing to raise tax rates on income over $250,000, so if your income goes up to $251,000, you only pay the higher rate on the extra $1,000. The tax bill on your first $250,000 stays exactly the same."

Their analysis is basically sound, except for the fact that it is not quite true. They have forgotten to look at deduction phaseouts, surtaxes, and the AMT, which are not taxes on marginal income.*

No matter what you have heard on the internet, there are in fact a lot of sizeable marginal inflection points for high earners. There are the Pease deduction phaseouts, temporarily abated by the Bush tax cuts but scheduled to go back into effect in 2013, which can eliminate up to 80% of deductions for couples who make more than about $175,000 (the number is indexed for inflation, so it changes every year): your deductions are reduced by 3% of the amount by which your income exceeds the threshhold. The student loan interest deduction phases out at $150,000 ($75,000 for singles). And a lot of tax-free savings opportunities disappear: educational savings accounts and IRAs have income limits, so your ability to use them starts phasing out in the low-six-figure income range. So do various educational and child tax credits. These things obviously aren't a huge deal for people who make $1,000,000 a year but they can be a huge tax hit for couples in the $150,000 to $300,000 range. Come 2013, they will be an even bigger hit.

And we haven't even discussed the AMT, which virtually eliminates deductions for couples who make the mistake of doing things like buying a house, having children, or living in a high tax state.

...

Links at site
Anecdotal, but these ideas do tend to take root:

Instapundit » Blog Archive » RESPONDING TO MARGINAL TAX RATES: Reader Alex Clay writes: After the election, my wife and I are…

November 25, 2012

RESPONDING TO MARGINAL TAX RATES: Reader Alex Clay writes:

After the election, my wife and I are going partial Galt. We’re in California, so our state income tax went up in addition to what’s sure to come out of Washington.

My wife quit her job last week. I increased my participation in a tax deferment plan offered by my employer to bring my taxable income as close to $250K as possible. We’ll be cutting back a little, but the government is going to getting a whole lot less.

My wife’s entire salary barely covered our tax bill – she was 100% slave to the government, while I was a 10% slave. Now she is 100% free, and I’ll be a ~35% slave As a couple, 17.5% of our time is slaving on the government plantation from an astounding 55% previously.

My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying.​

I think we’ll see a lot of this. Whether it will add up to “Irish Democracy” or not, well, we’ll see.

Just think of how Obamacare has already led to entire industries moving employees from full-time to part-time. This week there's also been discussion of the disincentives for business with fewer than 50 employees to grow beyond 49, costs are prohibitive.

Instapundit, that's truly funny. Well, not the post itself which by itself is silly, but the idiots who thanked you for posting it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Really? So what do like that you are willing to cut? I can guess what you hate to spend on but the way this works is that everyone has to give something up. For example, how much defense spending are you willing part with? How much money for your state and district? How about that hospital or road project in your town? It does not matter if your congressman is dem or pub they are not going to shoot their own district in the foot. It's why I said that spending has it's own inertia and nothing will ever be cut deeply enough to make the slightest difference in the deficit. America likes the current level of spending, they just don't want to pay for it and putting it on the national credit card is just so damned easy.

At least you admit spending is the issue. That's a start.
We can start cutting by getting rid of everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constutition as an obligation or power of the Federal Government.

Blind ideological solutions are both impossible to implement and recklessly damaging in their unintended consequences.

How could they be any more damaging than the cluster-fuck we've bought ourselves?
Yeah, I can imagine the consequences: people actually taking responsibility for themselves rather than begging the gov't to do something for them. Terrible!

 

[mudwhistle]

Really? So what do like that you are willing to cut? I can guess what you hate to spend on but the way this works is that everyone has to give something up. For example, how much defense spending are you willing part with? How much money for your state and district? How about that hospital or road project in your town? It does not matter if your congressman is dem or pub they are not going to shoot their own district in the foot. It's why I said that spending has it's own inertia and nothing will ever be cut deeply enough to make the slightest difference in the deficit. America likes the current level of spending, they just don't want to pay for it and putting it on the national credit card is just so damned easy.

At least you admit spending is the issue. That's a start.
We can start cutting by getting rid of everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constutition as an obligation or power of the Federal Government.

Blind ideological solutions are both impossible to implement and recklessly damaging in their unintended consequences.

Sort of like over taxing job creators regardless of the negative consequences.

Dude, you keep walking into it.

 

[occupied]

Who's money is it occupied?

I know when I get paid that taxes are taken out before I get it so that's a good question. I do not seem to get to play with my money all year and then are offered a wide variety of deductions to shelter it so a better question would be why is their money so precious and inviolable and mine so easily taken and so difficult to get back?

You didn't answer the question....the answer is most imortant

Any answer I would give you involves social responsibility. I have a feeling that you do not think anyone owes a thin dime back to the society that provided an economy, infrastructure and safety where someone could become exceptionally wealthy so why bother?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Gramps

Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

Maybe you've already answered this but who has ever said anything about "taxing just the rich"?

Obama. And about a gazillion Democrats.

Lying doesn't help the conversation.

Or are you saying you can prove that "Obama and a gazilion Dems" want to "tax just the rich"?

Why not admit you're lying?

 

[occupied]

At least you admit spending is the issue. That's a start.
We can start cutting by getting rid of everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constutition as an obligation or power of the Federal Government.

Blind ideological solutions are both impossible to implement and recklessly damaging in their unintended consequences.

Sort of like over taxing job creators regardless of the negative consequences.

Dude, you keep walking into it.

It's not blind ideology, things were better before the Bush tax cuts, nothing seemed to be gained by extending them so it's time to put them back and see if that helps.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

At least you admit spending is the issue. That's a start.
We can start cutting by getting rid of everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constutition as an obligation or power of the Federal Government.

Blind ideological solutions are both impossible to implement and recklessly damaging in their unintended consequences.

Sort of like over taxing job creators regardless of the negative consequences.

Dude, you keep walking into it.

Which is exactly what has been done for all these years.

Its time for the wealthy to carry their fair share so the job creators can get on with more of the economic growth like that which they've already accomplished.

 

[Antares]

I know when I get paid that taxes are taken out before I get it so that's a good question. I do not seem to get to play with my money all year and then are offered a wide variety of deductions to shelter it so a better question would be why is their money so precious and inviolable and mine so easily taken and so difficult to get back?

You didn't answer the question....the answer is most imortant

Any answer I would give you involves social responsibility. I have a feeling that you do not think anyone owes a thin dime back to the society that provided an economy, infrastructure and safety where someone could become exceptionally wealthy so why bother?

LOL,not one is whining about paying our taxes, we reject your notion that we owe more.

Now you are hiding behind semantics....the money we earn is OURS, it is ludicrous to think that the Gov gets .

Social responsibility in no way means YOU get unlimited access to MY money....as I said earlier, you aren't up for this.

 

[occupied]

You didn't answer the question....the answer is most imortant

Any answer I would give you involves social responsibility. I have a feeling that you do not think anyone owes a thin dime back to the society that provided an economy, infrastructure and safety where someone could become exceptionally wealthy so why bother?

LOL,not one is whining about paying our taxes, we reject your notion that we owe more.

Now you are hiding behind semantics....the money we earn is OURS, it is ludicrous to think that the Gov gets .

Social responsibility in no way means YOU get unlimited access to MY money....as I said earlier, you aren't up for this.

Even if you were a billionaire, which I suspect you are not, a return to Clinton era tax rates does not constitute "unlimited access" nor would they cause undue hardship to you at all. My Bush tax cut was hardly enough to notice and made no difference in my life, the ferocity some people are displaying in trying keep them is astonishing, you would think all these people are living so far beyond their means that this one little bump is just going to ruin them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gramps

Maybe you've already answered this but who has ever said anything about "taxing just the rich"?

Obama. And about a gazillion Democrats.

Lying doesn't help the conversation.

Or are you saying you can prove that "Obama and a gazilion Dems" want to "tax just the rich"?

Why not admit you're lying?

You have an issue with truth-telling, don't you? Or is it just stupid?
Obama: Tax the rich to help grow the economy

 

[The Rabbi]

I know when I get paid that taxes are taken out before I get it so that's a good question. I do not seem to get to play with my money all year and then are offered a wide variety of deductions to shelter it so a better question would be why is their money so precious and inviolable and mine so easily taken and so difficult to get back?

You didn't answer the question....the answer is most imortant

Any answer I would give you involves social responsibility. I have a feeling that you do not think anyone owes a thin dime back to the society that provided an economy, infrastructure and safety where someone could become exceptionally wealthy so why bother?

Why does higher taxes=social responsibility? Why are you being socially responsible with other people's money? That isn't generosity. That's theft.

 

[dnsmith35]

Raising tax on the "rich" will not raise enough revenue. Maybe we should eliminate the Bush tax cuts then put a graduated surcharge on incomes over $300,000?

In addition we need to stop with the "tax" holiday (actually a premium holiday as pay roll "taxes" are really premiums for retirement and disability insurance.)

 

[Antares]

Any answer I would give you involves social responsibility. I have a feeling that you do not think anyone owes a thin dime back to the society that provided an economy, infrastructure and safety where someone could become exceptionally wealthy so why bother?

LOL,not one is whining about paying our taxes, we reject your notion that we owe more.

Now you are hiding behind semantics....the money we earn is OURS, it is ludicrous to think that the Gov gets .

Social responsibility in no way means YOU get unlimited access to MY money....as I said earlier, you aren't up for this.

Even if you were a billionaire, which I suspect you are not, a return to Clinton era tax rates does not constitute "unlimited access" nor would they cause undue hardship to you at all. My Bush tax cut was hardly enough to notice and made no difference in my life, the ferocity some people are displaying in trying keep them is astonishing, you would think all these people are living so far beyond their means that this one little bump is just going to ruin them.

Then of course you'd have no problem with also returning to Clinton era spending levels, correct?