Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?

When I see posts like this which are mainly rhetoric and name-calling I lose all respect for the poster.

Here are some places where people are not allowed to speak; Cuba, Venezula, North Korea, Iraq (pre-2003), Afghanistan (pre-2001), Soviet Union (pre-fall of the Berlin Wall)

Before you call people idiots and suggest they don't read, I would suggest you read the attached links rather than get all your info from the headlines of the NY Times, Washington Post and ABC:

Saddam's Dangerous Friends (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp)

The Mother of All Connections (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp)

Andrew C. McCarthy on Iraq on National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406010821.asp)

Ok, those links are all from the Weekly Standard and National Review -- both pro-Bush, neocon stink tanks if there ever was one. That's exactly the same as leftists getting all their news from the NY Times, Washington Post and ABC.

most people consider it 250k, but i think 500k for a household is a much better figure due to the cost of living around DC.

That seems more reasonable to me. Then again, I don't make $500k/year, so it's hard to speak for that type of household.

You're right though - cost of living is a factor.

Ok, those links are all from the Weekly Standard and National Review -- both pro-Bush, neocon stink tanks if there ever was one. That's exactly the same as leftists getting all their news from the NY Times, Washington Post and ABC.

Well you can find examples from places like ABC News, from as far back as a decade ago (if not longer)

However, that's not what this thread is about

Before you call people idiots and suggest they don't read, I would suggest you read the attached links rather than get all your info from the headlines of the NY Times, Washington Post and ABC:

Saddam's Dangerous Friends (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp)

The Mother of All Connections (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp)

Andrew C. McCarthy on Iraq on National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406010821.asp)


How does ABC make the list? Giant corporate owned media outlet that doesn't really provide any worthwhile news (and employs George Will at least one day a week) - no offense to anyone in their employ, hey ESPN still has some good stuff. Could we at least get credit for some decent Trotskyite outlets like The Nation or NPR or even The New Republic?

Another Marxian propaganda perpetrator in the house. If you like France so much why don't you move there? It seems to me that you'll be much happier there.

Saden, I think you might have hit upon the best way to respond to this thread ... I might just totally ignore it if not for your wonderful hyperbole.

I wonder what these people would do if they actually had to go live the life of someone who is actually working class? I think they might just shrivel up and die, the strain would be just too much for them. "I can't put 15% in my 401k and Junior might have to go to a state school. Whoas me!"

Notice also that among the costs that are putting the 'squeeze' on these poor folks are health care and education. Let's think about that one for a second.
Well the people I know who makes that kind of money started from the bottom. Some worked their way to the top and some took tons in loans so to become doctors. These guys work harder then anyone I know and thats why they have the incomes they do today. They are the working class as much as anyone of us. If they went back to what you call the working class they would just work their way up as they did the first time. I just do not get your way of thinking or maybe you just have not been around and seen how hard people work to make that kind of money. I guess you could point out some who had it handed to them. You could also find some not working that hard today but it was the hard work they put in when younger to enjoy life a little more from the top.

wtf are you talking about? i said someone making 25k a year needs the 15% that a flat tax would charge them to live on, since 25k/year is dick money. I don't see what's so sprewell about someone who'd make $1770/month w/ rent or a condo mortgage running $1100 in NoVa needing the 15% extra that a flat tax would take from him.

please read my posts more carefully :P it's not like this is the first or fourth time.


Don't have a cow man, I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm merely elaborating on what you wrote.

The Sprewell reference is in regards to 250K possibly not being enough.

Don't have a cow man, I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm merely elaborating on what you wrote.

The Sprewell reference is in regards to 250K possibly not being enough.

k, it sounded like you were mis-interpreting what i had written though, and where referencing sprewell to the unfairness of flat taxes for those of low income, which, of course, makes no sense.

250k per household in NoVA would make up too high a percentage to call it rich. two gov/dod contractors in one house can easily hit that mark. at 500k you're either getting stock options, or own a pretty decent business, or have acquired enough cash to live off investing...

it's not that 250k isn't enough to live on, it's just not exactly rich compared to the median income and cost of living near major cities, though it is towards the higher end.

wtf are you talking about? i said someone making 25k a year needs the 15% that a flat tax would charge them to live on, since 25k/year is dick money. I don't see what's so sprewell about someone who'd make $1770/month w/ rent or a condo mortgage running $1100 in NoVa needing the 15% extra that a flat tax would take from him.

please read my posts more carefully :P it's not like this is the first or fourth time.
Under the flat tax plain lower income families would receive a tax credit so low income families would still not pay taxes under the flat tax plan. Some would even receive more credit back then they paid in taxes.

Well the people I know who makes that kind of money started from the bottom. Some worked their way to the top and some took tons in loans so to become doctors. These guys work harder then anyone I know and thats why they have the incomes they do today. They are the working class as much as anyone of us. If they went back to what you call the working class they would just work their way up as they did the first time. I just do not get your way of thinking or maybe you just have not been around and seen how hard people work to make that kind of money. I guess you could point out some who had it handed to them. You could also find some not working that hard today but it was the hard work they put in when younger to enjoy life a little more from the top.

My simple point was that I wonder what these people would do if they found themselves having to support a family of four on a household income of $40,000-45,000. But maybe you haven't been around and seen how hard people work to make that kind of money (my dad was a carpenter, my wife's father a fire fighter - obviously if they possessed more personal virtue they would have attained greater things and made more money). I have a tough shedding tears for folks who are crying poor because they make $300,000 and their taxes might go up 3%.

It is a basic question about the role of government in society, which is the core of the ideological divide between what we refer to as liberalism and conservatism. George Will calls it the difference between 'freedom' and 'equality' (as well as the difference between truth and fantasy, but I'll avoid such a dichotomy), which contains some truth perhaps. I'd say that only those at the top can experience true freedom because at the bottom economic necessity greatly constrains choice, so I'd disagree with Will, but I do think equity - if not equality - should be a core American value. I also think that people who 'succeed' do so not only by their virtue but with the help of a social infrastructure (roads, police enforcement, the rule of law, government policy, etc.) that supports the attainment and aggregation of wealth. That they therefore have an obligation to to contribute to the maintenance of that infrastructure. It strikes me that rolling back parts of the Bush tax cuts is not particularly onerous and that those cuts were a bad idea in the first place, especially given the apparent imperative of fighting a war that has cost exponentially more than what we were told by the administration in 2003. You can disagree, certainly, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me like I am just some idiot who 'hasn't been around'. Maybe, rather than being a simpleton, I disagree ideologically.

I also think that people who 'succeed' do so not only by their virtue but with the help of a social infrastructure (roads, police enforcement, the rule of law, government policy, etc.) that supports the attainment and aggregation of wealth.

I think that few wealthy individuals have a problem paying for roads, police, the military, etc. Some government programs, however, are not so vital to our society or economy and I think some people have a problem paying for them.

It strikes me that rolling back parts of the Bush tax cuts is not particularly onerous and that those cuts were a bad idea in the first place, especially given the apparent imperative of fighting a war that has cost exponentially more than what we were told by the administration in 2003.

Some of his tax cuts, however, actually increased tax revenue. Reducing the capital gains tax, for example, actually increased capital gains tax revenue. Moreover, capital gains tax cuts were not aimed squarely at the upper echelons of society. More than 50% of the American households report capital gains/losses. Moreover, the notion that we should increase taxes on people who have gained money by pumping money into the economy sounds somewhat counterproductive to me, especially in light of the fallout of the subprime market and its aftershocks (e.g., limited credit availability for M&A and capital expenditures).