I haven’t said a damn thing about the term “job creators”, and it isn’t mentioned in your OP. And I haven’t said a damn word about which side is saying what. If you want to know why people put “rich” in quotes, then I’m your man. If you want to argue about job creators and which side is the most Orwellian, go talk to someone else.
Are you a fucking child? Look at post 44, you are responding specifically to my notion (raised by someone else) that the republicans are deliberately trying to replace the word “rich” with “job creator” - when I point out that this is literally Orwellian, you stop in to say “well your side does it too in regards to income/wealth!”
You responded to my point that was about “job creators” and said “yeah the democrats do the same thing with wealth/income”, and I explained why that made no fucking sense. Now you’re denying you ever responded to my post about it and instead asking me where in the OP that shit was. Well, it wasn’t in the OP dipshit, it was in post #3, the one you were responding to there.
All I was saying in those posts was that the term rich is being redefined for political purposes to apply to income. I don’t know anything about the “job creators” kerfluffle and I don’t care. I was responding to the gist of what you were saying as it relates to the OP and not to the job creators crap or what the other side was doing.
I’m beginning to fear for your blood pressure. You need to chill.
You can’t say “that’s the same thing I think when [someone does something]” and then claim you’re completely uninterested in the [someone does something] part and that your statement had nothing to do with it.
I don’t have to actually get enraged, by the way, to roughly denounce malformed kneejerk partisan reactions. I’ve been dealing with all sorts of bullshit from people all my life and I’ve become quite adept at handling it. I’m actually probably more polite to you than you generally deserve, and more polite than what’s average for the pit.
Again, if you want to know why some people roll their eyes when certain other people talk about “the rich”, then I can tell you. As for the other stuff, I don’t care and am not gonna comment on it.
And I wouldn’t particularly describe you as adept at dealing with other people’s behavior. YMOV.
Too bad you can’t go back on time and not have commented on it at the first place.
And I am quite adept at dealing with idiocy. My post is my cite.
If a person won $1,000,000 and then lost it, I would say that they were rich and then not. Is this supposed to be, you know, a challenging question or something?
Whatever. To me, being able to blow $2,000,000 on hookers and blow is the very definition of rich. If you took the brains of Mark Twain and Oscar Wilde and put them through the Wit-inator 4000, they couldn’t come up with a more pithy definition.
As far as you are concerned anyway. However, there are also those who have always believed that someone making X amount is considered rich. How they choose to spend their money/whether or not they have a large net worth is not a factor.
So, in your world, there is no incentive to better oneself, to work hard and earn that six figures? Of course, I’m assuming you already know that those making more pay more, and that in some areas six figures isn’t a massive salary, but maybe I shouldn’t.
It isn’t how it is written but in the real world that is how it sometimes seems to turn out. For example - I had to quit working in 2007 so our annual income dropped by $20K+. Due to the difference in the amount of income tax we pay (which does include state income tax), we have noticed almost no difference. I’ve made some adjustments, but really our lifestyle hasn’t changed that much, and $20K is (to me anyway) a lot of money.
And with regards to job creation, what we need is greater demand for goods and services. That implies higher temporary budget deficits – or conventional counter-cyclical fiscal policies.
What we don’t need is policy geared for the Republican donor-class of $1 million/yr +
Emphasis added. Maybe Wall Street will figure out that it’s worth a couple of percentage points off your income if you get sane operators of the US budget.
A little off-topic, but what the hell: Starving Artist, I’d be willing to bet that you’re one of those folks who thinks that people shouldn’t get food stamps or welfare if they have something trivial like a color TV. Yeah?
“…and its a beautiful spring day here at the Idiot Adeptness National Finals, and what a splendid array of competitors are here! Tom, who are the experts watching today?”
“A bright young competitor named Senor Beef, making his first…”
“Excuse me, Tom, is that like very old meat? I mean…”
“No, Fred, its S-E-N-O-R, like Mr. in Spanish. Anyway, this plucky newcomer has his plate full, going up to the heavyweight division with Starving Artist…”
“Now, Tom, I’m not quite sure I agree with the officials on that one, Starkers has years of experience in rock hard obstinance, and a cognitive capacity just short of cottage cheese. This is not a fair matchup in for even a seasoned idiot adept like the legendary 'luc. Even he has been driven to gnash his teeth and curse at the placid and serene idiocy of Starkers. That match is over before its begun, we can only hope this Senior Beef is not injured too badly…”
“Thats Senor, Tom, oh, never mind. What a maroon…”
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Note that nowhere to be found is a definition of “rich” which means “earns so much money, it pisses you off”.
Now let’s look what Fortune Magazine (and the SEC) has to say on *CNN’*s website:
So it appears that just like I said, Democrat politicians are claiming “rich” means whatever level they decide to increasing soaking someone for more tax money, whereas M-W Online and at least two money-related entities (Fortune Magazine and the SEC) define “rich” as having a lot of money in tangible assets.
So, point to Starving Artist.
Now, let’s look at what that article has to say about the effect of soaking “the rich”:
So, while I didn’t make this claim specifically, I wouldn’t say it seems like a point for the “Tax the shit out of those rich motherfuckers” side.
So, now let’s look at what the article, written by a writer versed in the real world of finance, has to say about what would work:
SCOOOOOOOORE!!!
So, that’s a point for Susanann at the very least. 
So, as much as certain people around here wish and hope with all their might that taxing rich motherfuckers is the solution not only to all our current problems but the key to health and prosperity for all, the real solution lies in the same principles we have to adhere to in our own lives, i.e.: when you’ve maxed out our credit cards and borrowed everything you can from anyone who’ll lend it to you, you have to stop spending as much. Getting your hands on more money and running up the tab even further - which we all know will be the result but only some of us will object to - will only make things that much worse.
I wouldn’t go into the mind-reading business if I were you. Stereotypes don’t form in a vacuum, but they are no guarantee.
And you’re good at it? I mean, you seem to think so:
The Federal Government is not like a family. Neither is GE or Exxon. But all 3 borrow as a matter of course.
Deficits = Revenue - Expenditure. You can adjust 2 out of the three and the other one pops out.
More to the point: if the congress did nothing and let all tax cuts expire, the deficit problem would go away, according to the CBO: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/chart-of-the-day-if-congress-does-nothing-the-deficit-will-disappear.php Now that includes a lot of stuff like the R&D tax credit which is routinely extended, as well as some politically unrealistic cuts to medicare reimbursements. Still.
Finally, here’s a breakdown of our deficit problems: a lot of it is the consequence of a) unsustainable tax cuts by G Bush, b) Pointless wars in Iraq and c) unfunded expansion in entitlements under G Bush - medicare Part D. Interestingly, unaffordable tax cuts have a heavier burden than the Iraq and Afghan war.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/chart-bush-policies-dominant-cause-of-debt.php?ref=fpblg
Those 2 charts are better than a boatload of media blather.
ETA: We need bigger deficits. http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/203760/we-need-bigger-deficits
Maybe we should call it “income tax” so as not to confuse people. At the Federal level we can call it the Federal Income Tax.
That is mathematically impossible, even in the real world. The highest state income tax marginal rate is 10.5% in CA for taxable income over $1M. The highest federal income tax marginal rate is 35%. So by decreasing your income by $20K your after tax shortage is at least $10,800, and more in most cases.
ETA: unless you are getting earned income tax credits.
I don’t do the taxes so I don’t know how it works, tho I highly doubt we are getting any credits of any kind - do we still get the one for having a mortgage? Other than that, all we would get would be for simply existing. All I do know is I am paying (somewhat higher) bills with the same ease I did when I was working. If we were missing $10,000 - about $833 a month - I’d think I’d notice it…
My husband may be a spendthrift but he’s not that bad!
About 95% of the Dopers responding here think they know that “very well.” Yet judging by the responses, you’re about the only one who’s internalized it into your intuition. They’re debating whether $250,000 (or $380,000) is “rich”, ignoring that those minimally rich pay 0% tax at the top rate. Using the 2nd figure, a family making $480,000 pays the top rate on only $100,000. And will stay have quite a bit left even if their taxes go up.
Presently the tax rates are so flattened as to almost be a “flat tax”, with the lower rates on low income compensated by regressive SocSec.
But we peons should consider ourselves lucky to get even a “flat tax” out of them. If the man earning $1,000,000 pays $200k while a man earning $100,000 pays $20k, the more productive member of society is paying ten times as much as the lazy scum sucking from the socialist teat. Wouldn’t it be fairer if they paid the same?
In fact, when you really think of it, the rich should pay less than the inferior people even in absolute terms. Funds for schools, roads, parks? They use private schools, helicopters & jets, vacation overseas. Funds for defense? They’ll flee to Switzerland when socialist America crumbles.
Even the “flat tax” is more than generous on the part of the superior people who make America great. The ungratefulness of the rest of you, sucking on the socialist teat, exceeds no bounds. Some of our better politicians are now proposing a way to stop this class warfare: using property requirements to disenfranchise the lazy Marxist Robin Hoods. The only reason America is doing as well as it is, is that restrictions on felons’ voting has already reduced the franchise of millions of the most inferior Americans.
Oh America. We are so deeply in denial about class that we are willing to believe people who live in the top .1% of the entire world are not particularly well off.