Was Hillary lying?

Quite a few in my town, cops too, but with a lot of overtime either way.

What does “reasonable” mean to you?

Within a fairly broad range that is determined by some uncontroversial principle.

I live in the very expensive Baltimore/Washington area. I make $100k, and while I’m not hurting, a person living in a lower-cost region could live as well as me on a LOT less money, and consequently pay less taxes.

I once discussed this with two friends in Pittsburgh, a married couple. They were ardent Republicans, and believed their taxes were too high. It developed that I made about the same money that the two of them did combined, but they were living much better than I was in terms of house and cars. They were opposed to tax relief for people, like me, living in a high-cost area, despite the fact that they paid a pittance in federal income taxes compared to what I did. (Admittedly, I could afford to spend more, but live well below my income. They also had three children. But the point is, even though I looked ‘richer’ than them on paper, they weren’t hurting compared to me).

I think that tax disparity due to regional cost-of-living is an injustice, but will never get rectified, because it falls between ideological/political cracks: most politicians who favor tax cuts are Republican, but such a correction would mostly benefit people living in blue states.

There are good public policy arguments against any scheme that would remedy this injustice. I think the strongest is that a balancing scheme will incentivize more people to move to the high cost of living area. This will drive up the cost of living, which will require marginally lower taxes. That cycle is obviously not sustainable.

Also, you’re getting some advantage for living in the high cost of living area in the first place. There’s a reason that Pittsburgh has a lower cost of living than DC or Manhattan, and it has a lot to do with available jobs, types of jobs, and all of the social and cultural advantages that come with living in the more expensive cities. It would be unfair to both benefit from the advantages of these popular areas and be compensated by the government for making that choice.

So only people making more than $100K should pay a tax, in order to provide retirement benefits to those making less than that amount? What would be the benefit to society as a whole of such a [del]scam[/del] scheme?

May I humbly note that it is not 2008? So the cap right now, in 2007, is $97.5k. Since it’s a “point of purchase” tax, so to speak, you pay it on every paycheck on money you make this year, not taxes you file next year.

Yes, but the thread is about what the candidates would do in office. Hence, 2008. If we wanted to be really accurate, we’d use 2009 numbers. Do we have those?

But the OP itself said “the current cap is $102,000”. It’s not.

True. I hope no one was making their budget based on my mis-worded OP. But for the argument we’re having, I believe $102,000 (or higher for 2009) is the proper cap for discussion. Agreed?

I didn’t notice that you wrote the OP. So I guess it’s your rules. :slight_smile:

This is the kind of stuff that is so frustrating for the rest of us. HC lovers swear up and down that she’s the smartest person in history, that she doesn’t just rely on her staffers, that she reads every paper and makes every final decision…

But as soon as she gets caught lying all of a sudden she’s retarded, so let’s just drop this please.

Sort of a moot point since it turns out she wasn’t lying, isn’t it? It seems she was technically accurate in her statements.

As we’ve seen in the thread, raising the FICA cap would mean a tax increase for *some *firefighters, etc. And I think **Polycarp **and others have argued persuasively that at least some reasonable definitions of middle class–in Hillary’s primary constituency–include people making $102,000.

At this point, I’d say what she said was misleading, but not an outright lie.

Does this thread mean that some people are still paying attention to the completely fictional “movie” that’s billed as politics in the US? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Yes. Wait, no. No, no…yes! Argh, you sure got me with your clever use a question with a false assumption. I guess I’ll have to quit posting and go back to beating my wife.

Hi. Sorry to be so slow…

No, they don’t seem to include benefits.

From here: http://www.joinlafd.org/Rewards.htm

Note: That’s starting salary, already at half of Senator Clinton’s stated figure.

I am not a fire fighter, but I believe that fire fighters are expected to be “on call for 24 hours a day” for a few days a week. I would not be surprised if those hours (over the 8 hour per day limit) worked on those days qualifies as overtime. Overtime is taxed. This overtime can amount to quite a lot of time and salary boost, depending on where an individual is assigned.

Whether benefits are taxed, most are probably not. At least, I know that my medical, dental, pension, life insurance, and so forth, are not taxed. Any contributions I put into these programs comes out of my pre-tax pay, and I suspect that fire fighters are no different.

Vacation benefits, that is, paid vacation, is taxed. (They’re taxing your pay…)

The FICA tax is based on an individual’s earnings and has nothing to do with filing status. All W-2 earnings, with no exemptions, are subject to it. Things like 401K contributions which reduce taxable income for other tax purposes have no impact on FICA withholding.

Ah. Thanks!

Aren’t you glad that it’s about to get worse? Join me in bracing yourself and bending over F.U.S., here come the Teflon Leprechaun, and he’s ramming a cold steel dildo up our financial asses! Wheeee!

Feline Urinary Syndrome?

:dubious: F. U. Shakespeare