McCainites for lower taxes: do you make over 250G?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Rand_Rover

1. We’re talking about the system of U.S. federal income taxation, so roads and schools are a bit left field.

Oh? Actually the Feds have a whole department devoted to education and spend quite a bit on infrastructure.

Such spending has occurred for over 100 years. For example, the land-grant colleges are part of the reason why the US has the most powerful research capabilities in the world.

2. I think the effective tax rate and the incidence of the tax should be determined from the bottom up (i.e., by looking at how much money is needed) and not from the top down (i.e., by looking at how much money it would be OK to take from the rich).

Yeah. But we don’t “need” to support research, just as the US didn’t “need” an intercontinental railroad in the 1800s. It’s just that America was richer and stronger after these tough decisions were not ducked.

3. Re: the constitution, keep reading a little further than that. The federal government only has limited power, and acting to promote the general welfare is not one of those powers.

LOL. I’m quoting from the preamble: it says “promote the General Welfare” as one of the core purposes of government. And what’s more, this claim is wholly unexceptional outside of the wingnut set. There is absolutely no ban on infrastructure investment, which is a good thing.

[gonzomax]

@Rand_Rover

1. We’re talking about the system of U.S. federal income taxation, so roads and schools are a bit left field.

2. I didn’t say that I believe U.S. citizens should each pay zero U.S. federal income tax. I think the effective tax rate and the incidence of the tax should be determined from the bottom up (i.e., by looking at how much money is needed) and not from the top down (i.e., by looking at how much money it would be OK to take from the rich).

3. Re: the constitution, keep reading a little further than that. The federal government only has limited power, and acting to promote the general welfare is not one of those powers. (Now, certain parts of the constitution, such as the commerce clause, has been interpreted so broadly that many of the strict constitutional limits on federal power have been eroded, but the point remains that no branch of the federal goverment has plenary power to promote the general welfare.)

Check out the mess tomorrow. If you can do it now dump some stocks. Lehman will declare bankruptcy . Let them die ,repercussions. Save them ,repercussions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ Check these headlines on Huffington.

[Voyager]

@Rand_Rover

1. We’re talking about the system of U.S. federal income taxation, so roads and schools are a bit left field.

2. I didn’t say that I believe U.S. citizens should each pay zero U.S. federal income tax. I think the effective tax rate and the incidence of the tax should be determined from the bottom up (i.e., by looking at how much money is needed) and not from the top down (i.e., by looking at how much money it would be OK to take from the rich).

I’m unaware that the federal budget process starts with income and works down. it actually starts with budget requests. Now, if you have ever done this kind of thing (and I have in private industry) you know that you give general targets to each department. If you think that your average manager, government or private, is going to start with a minimal request, you’ve either never done this or are living in fantasy land. Then at higher levels you cut requests depending on priorities. In industry the CEO and board does the final resolution, in government it is Congress, which is going to be more political and messier.

The big issue I have with government spending (and my little bit of exposure is all defense related) is that there is the spend now or get your budget cut strategy, not seen in industry these days, and also a lack of incentive to cut back. If I save lots of money for my company, I might get a bonus and a higher stock price - not so for the guy running a defense program. Lots of people do care, to be sure, but it doesn’t seem to be the culture at the highest levels.

So, bottom up budgeting is done to a major extent, but doesn’t solve the problem.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@gonzomax

Check out the mess tomorrow. If you can do it now dump some stocks. Lehman will declare bankruptcy . Let them die ,repercussions. Save them ,repercussions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ Check these headlines on Huffington.

Heh.

I predict that Wall St will finally come to grips with the McCain/Palin/Bush policy of lies, slow-growth and nation-sapping war-mongering tomorrow: the Dow will drop by over 100 points. 200 points wouldn’t surprise me at all. A meltdown is certainly possible. Nothing to do with Lehman, Merrill et al of course.

[Desert_Nomad]

@A_shameful_cracka

According to this chart Obama does not want to raise taxes on people making 250K/per year - taxes will be very slightly less. The group he wants to raise taxes on is those making more than 603K.

250K a year is not rich, in my opinion…an upper-middle-class household with two working professionals can make that easily. Someone making $50,000 a MONTH is rich.

250K is not rich as in private jets, but it is VERY, VERY well off… more than $20,000 per month. I don’t think two professional can make that “easily” except in a few locales.

[Rand_Rover]

@Measure_for_Measure

LOL. I’m quoting from the preamble: it says “promote the General Welfare” as one of the core purposes of government. And what’s more, this claim is wholly unexceptional outside of the wingnut set. There is absolutely no ban on infrastructure investment, which is a good thing.

I’m not sure why I feel the need to respond again as you will just either ignore it or not understand it like with my previous response. But here goes.

I know that that is what the preamble says. But the federal government is one of limited powers. It can only do what the constiution says it can do. It does not have the power to do anything it believes necessary to promote the general welfare. Furthermore, I believe that the federal government would best promote the general welfare by doing as little as possible.

Therefore, just because the preamble says “promote the general welfare” does not mean that the U.S. federal government should or must invest in the nation’s infrastructure (or do anything else that it does not have specific power to do).

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Rand_Rover

I asked exactly what you meant earlier to give you a chance to explain. You have now explained and clearly identified the evil and immoral perspective you have on society, which makes the productive slaves to the unproductive.

The measure of taxes should be the very least necessary for government to do what it needs to do (which should itself be the very least necessary to protect us from enemies from within and without) not the amount the rich don’t “need” or wouldn’t “miss” or the amount that would make taxes become a “disincentive to be rich.”

You got all that out of my question?

[JXJohns]

@Desert_Nomad

250K is not rich as in private jets, but it is VERY, VERY well off… more than $20,000 per month. I don’t think two professional can make that “easily” except in a few locales.

Compared to someone making $25k, sure, $250k is well off. Coming from a guy who lives in the middle of the midwest, with a modest two story home, a seven year old and a three year old domestic SUVs, with three kids under seven, $250 gross aint well off. I know we have it better than many, but we are far from “well off”

Regarding your second point, $250k gross for a married couple is not that high of a bar in MANY locales. I live in a metro area that is barely 400,000 people in a state that only has about 3 million souls. I would imagine that hitting that mark in a real city would be even easier.

[welby]

My wife and I don’t make over $250K, but we’re working hard to get there, or even higher. For us it’s not so much a question of one day owning a mansion or plane, but instead its about having enough to retire on plus having enough to leave behind for our daughter, who will not be able to support herself alone due to developmental issues.

Our plan for increasing our wealth includes buying, selling, and renting real estate. Under Obama’s plan That will mean that we will pay more taxes on our investment income, leaving us less money to use towards our goal. Working hard in order to make less money doesn’t really appeal to me. I can’t give you accurate figures to the penny because I have to do that crap for the IRS already, and I don’t have the time to invest. In general, however, I’d pay enough in additional taxes that the dividend and capital gains taxes are pretty close to my number one issue this election.

For the record, on our way to the magic “$250K rich-line” my wife and I work two jobs each, and I am in school working towards an advanced degree so that I can increase my earning potential. We own rental properties which require care and maintenance. In short, we’re busting our asses on a daily basis to increase our wealth. Maybe it’s selfish, but I want to keep as much of my hard earned money as humanly possible. An increase in capital gains and dividend taxes won’t help that goal.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

It’s pretty funny Rand Rover that you’re arguing for less government influence in everything (in a Libertarian sense), while the only thing that might save yours and my asses from the finance industry’s completely irresponsible behavior is government intervention.

I don’t like it at all that taxpayer money is essentially being given out to make sure that entire system doesn’t come crashing down like a house of cards. But this is what government is for. This is the difference between now and the Great Depression (I hope). It’s really difficult to point fingers and blame a certain group responsible for it. I’ve even read that it might have been Clinton’s repeal of a certain law that was ultimately responsible. The point is that unbridled capitalism has consequences.

I’m also less confident in the “power of the market” to understand a damn thing. I used to be of the school that the market reflected the accurate situation in the short term, and that a good market indicated a good economy. However, this subprime crisis has been building for years and it was essentially ignored.