Perhaps if you would stick with what I actually say and not try to put words in my mouth it would save you having to shout and wave your arms around. What I actually said is continuing to shift the tax burden upwards can be a disincentive for someone to better themselves, not “bother to work anymore”.
No, I’m saying I can see that someone would seriously consider whether it was worth it to put in the work to make $550K as opposed to $500K. Same for any other time someone ends up in a higher tax bracket due to being rewarded for hard work.
:rolleyes: God you are being an asshole. You completely miss my point and then when I try to bow out you continue to rant on. I hope I’ve been clear enough for you here, as I probably will not have time to do much else.
Personally, I think the world would be much better off if fewer people strove to accumulate money well past the point of a comfortable living, allowing more money to go around to everyone else. That’s just me, though.
You and Senor Beef seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn’t agree with everything you say. For one thing, I have no strong opinions on this subject merely because it wouldn’t do me any good. For another, there is no way you could know if I am “simply wrong” about my own finances. The facts are these -
I stopped working Sept of 2007
This resulted in a net loss of income of about $20,000
I pay all of our bills except my husbands Amex
There has been zero noticeable drop in standard of living here.
Which cannot be explained by tax cuts because we don’t qualify for most of them.
Now, as I said to Senor Beef, I hope this is clear to you because I may not have time to post much more as I am getting on a plane in a few hours to go to Hawaii.
Did you look at the link? Are they saying these folks paid no more taxes on 4/15, or that they got everything back (and sometimes more) that had been withheld from their paychecks?
One would think I’ve learned a lesson about dealing with you, but I’ll take a pot shot anyways…
(A) You said above that you don’t do the taxes, so how the hell do you know which “tax cuts” you qualify for? (B) Fucking everyone qualifies for the Bush tax cuts. It was universal, designed that way because it’s still not palatable (although just barely!) for Congress to say, “Let’s pass a tax cut for only the rich.”
What does this even mean? Poor people won’t bother trying to improve their lot in life because they’ll have to pay more taxes? The fact that they’ll still have more money than before doesn’t enter into it?
As was pointed out, even if that extra $50k is taxed at a higher rate, that’s still more money than they had before. Whether it’s worth it to that person isn’t for me to say, but complaining that progressive taxes punish people for hard work is clueless on many levels.
There have been many discussions like this in the past. Maybe SenorBeef is being a bit harsh on you, personally, but you’re just repeating stuff that’s been said in the past, and it hasn’t gotten any less ridiculous in the repetition.
Especially when we consider that this top marginal rate has been much higher in the past, with no observable effect on job creation or GDP growth. Hell, it was 90% in the not-too-ancient past.
Oh ferchrissakes, do you think my husband and I don’t talk?
Do you have trouble reading or is it just comprehension? Did you see the word “most” in that sentence? The Bush tax cuts are not “most” of the available tax write-offs.
Really out of patience and time for this. Did you actually read what you are responding to?
Really? Have you looked at the world recently? There are a lot of people who are happy to live on very little money because they simply have no interest in working for a living. How much of a leap of logic is it to opine that there may be people, maybe even many, who would draw the line at working hard to earn money to send to the government. Remember, it isn’t just income tax that one pays on payroll, so everything goes up. You can’t see the possibility that some people would decide that working overtime/getting more training/commuting further isn’t worth whatever net increase they might end up with? “More money” is not always worth the sacrifice, and everyone has their limits as to what they will do for it.
Obviously, I wasn’t involved in those discussions, and to assume that any opinion must be ridiculous simply because you don’t agree with it is juvenile.
Quite possibly. I find communicating with you pretty unpleasant.
Channeling Jackie Chiles: Who was talking about tax write-offs? I wasn’t talking about tax write-offs. You weren’t talking about tax write-offs. Show me where you said tax write-offs:
So, if I’m following your logic properly… you think it’s abhorrent (my paraphrase) for people who pay no income tax to own a TV, multiple cars (even if they’re shitty), a two-story house (how that’s a standard of success, I have no idea), and clothes without stains and holes in them… But lord knows you don’t apply that same standard to the subset of people on food stamps, the poorest of the poor! They can have all the TVs and non-beshitted clothing they want! Hell, they can have three story houses!
…
Does not compute.
Is this a known corollary of Gaudere’s Law? People who unjustly call others stupid will make stupid typos? (And you’ve got a two-fer: failure to use the subjunctive, and omission of a word! You’ve hit gold! Now you’re rich, so let me tax you on it.)
Cite for “There are a lot of people who are happy to live on very little money because they simply have no interest in working for a living”? I know a lot of people who don’t prioritize making money and are happy with what they have, but to say “they simply have no interest in working for a living” is a ridiculous stereotype. It’s just a variation on the standard “poor people are lazy” meme, and not even a very original one at that.
As for the rest of your comment, I did say “Whether it’s worth it to that person isn’t for me to say”. Did you miss that part? Because if you’d read that I can’t see how this response makes sense. Pointing out other factors that might cause someone not to try for a higher salary is just strengthening my argument and weakening yours.
Also, I’m sure it’s been pointed out to you many times, but I guess it needs repeating: “working harder” =/= “making more money”. Luck and opportunity are pretty huge factors. I’m not saying all rich people didn’t work for it, I’m sure a lot of them did, but to simply insist that there’s a consistent and unquestionable 1-1 correspondence between work and income is ridiculously naive.
No, I’m calling it ridiculous because it’s been shown to be ridiculous many, many times.
Oh, good grief! What I abhor is that our tax-the-rich government has decided that people living what almost anyone would consider to be typical suburban lifestyles are now so impoverished that they no longer required to help support the government.
People on food stamps, on the other hand and so far as I know, genuinely are underpriviliged whether they have TV’s or not.
Did you read the cite I posted above (well, actually someone else posted but I quoted from) about those in the “don’t pay federal income tax” bracket? How it’s really only 35% or so (the recessions made it abnormally high)? How 61% of them make $20k or less? How the majority are either elderly or students?
As to what the truly middle-class should pay, I’m with you - repeal the Bush tax cuts now!
You know who loves food stamps, Starving? Cargill. Archer Daniels Midland. General Foods. All the people who are pawns in the plot of the corn plant to take over the world. Ever notice how easily it glides past Pubbies, who you think would hate, hate, hate it?
And no, if you check into it, food assistance doesn’t so much go to the utterly impoverished (it does, but not predominantly) as to persons who might become so impoverished but are not as yet. And lately, there are lots and lots of them. If you are like most people, odds are good that someone you know personally is using them. Maybe they don’t tell you. Or, maybe neither of your friends is on food stamps. Whatever.
