In response to:

'Bait and Switch' Taxes

cnesmith Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 2:08 PM
@KrankyMike - The 'left' economists also have PHDs. The solution to the problem is hardly clearcut. Stop acting like it is. I don't think anyone disagrees that tax rates have an effect on the economy. But tax cuts aren't always the answer, just as increases aren't always the answer. People with above $250k/yr have enough money that raising their tax rate a couple points will not effect their standard of living. You can make the argument the author did, that billionaires will stop creating jobs here if taxes are raised (despite the fact they didn't create more when taxes were cut), but I believe the problem is more rooted in lack of consumption by the middle/working class because they have no money. AKA insufficient demand.
Ken6226 Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 3:35 PM
Let me explain something to you. Suppose we have a flat tax rate of, say, 10 percent? Under those conditions, a person making $30,000 a year would pay $3000 in taxes. A person making a million dollars a year would pay $100,000 in taxes. Even though the rate is the same, the latter person is still paying NINETY-SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE in taxes.

What is so "unfair" about that?
myhumbleopin Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 3:40 PM
That might very well be the most fair way to do taxes. It's a tough call...
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 4:42 PM
There's nothing tough about it.

Fair means treating everyone the same. A low, flat tax on all forms of income is the closest this imperfect world can get to fair.
faultroy Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 3:23 PM
The fact is that we are a nation of special interests. Businessmen don't donate a billion dollars to each candidate for the privilege of being in office for four years without expecting something in return. You can take to the bank the reality that regardless as to who is elected, taxes will INCREASE for everyone--and be most beneficial to those spending the most to get a candidate elected. Now we all know this to be true, so why play games with semantics?
cnesmith Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 3:30 PM
Well, it's better to try and hold them to something they've campaigned for. I agree though. Money in politics is one of the worst things about the US system.
John in Gwinnett,Ga Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 3:02 PM
"People with above $250k/yr have enough money that raising their tax rate a couple points will not effect their standard of living."

That is one of the worst statements I have ever heard. Never heard of living above your means and losing it all eh?
cnesmith Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 3:24 PM
I'm unsure what your problem with my statement. The fact that people with $250k+ can afford a tax increase has nothing to do with living above your means. If they're living above their means that's their own fault....
aj59 Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 3:58 PM
so who made you the boss to decide who has enough money, and who doesn't? Someone making $250K+, who is also the owner of a small business, if hit with a tax increase just might lay off a worker or two in order to cover that increase. Ever hear of "unintended consequences"?
Fred75 Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 2:28 PM
Pop quiz for you:

What is the average annual gross receipt of the businesses in America that employ the largest numbers of people?
cnesmith Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 3:25 PM
I'll answer if you can tell me what that has to do at all with my statement.
ResistWeMuch Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 4:21 PM
According to the Census Bureau's 2008 data, there were 11,875,731 small businesses (defined as any commercial entity with under 100 employees) with 42,146,664 paid employees and a combined annual payroll of $1,522,691,506.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 2:23 PM
Anyone who says that someone else has "enough money" is dealing in the politics of envy.
cnesmith Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 2:37 PM
Not really. Just more economically viable in my opinion.
aj59 Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 3:55 PM
Nope - Mother has it right; it's envy. And no amount of rationalization can change that fact.
myhumbleopin Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 4:04 PM
One could argue that it is merely a statement of fact, knowing what it takes to "survive" in this country. Speaking as one who has to survive on less than 1/5 of that income.
-Mof3
myhumbleopin Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 2:12 PM
We have heard many times from President Barack Obama how he plans to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires," but not on the middle class. Apparently, if you don't happen to be a millionaire or billionaire, you don't have to worry.

But the numbers say otherwise -- and say so big time.

The actual tax increase plans being proposed by Obama do not start with people who have an income of a million dollars a year. They start with people with incomes of $250,000 and up.

That is more than most people make, but it...