Because most of those folks in trailer parks are working for a small business that makes over 250k a year and when their expenses go up (taxes) they tend to cut labor costs (those folks in the trailer park). So they end up losing their jobs. It's really not that hard to understand.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obamas 250K tax line? protests make no sense?
- Thread starter noob_trad3r
- Start date
Because most of those folks in trailer parks are working for a small business that makes over 250k a year and when their expenses go up (taxes) they tend to cut labor costs (those folks in the trailer park). So they end up losing their jobs. It's really not that hard to understand.
Quote from hermit:
The 250 number isn't set in stone, nobody is saying they cant be revised few years down the line.
True. But I am willing to bet that it doesnt change. Kind of like the AMT situation we are facing now. The AMT was designed to keep the rich paying "their fair share". Now the AMT affects people who are far from rich because the law was never revised. And the reason they never revised it was because they knew what the end goal would be. More people paying more taxes. Look like the populist appeaser now....but get paid later. Govt has the edge in the form of time. People saving for retirement and such do not.
It is truly a vicious way to operate. And we cannot let them have their way.
wiki -
"The AMT operates as a parallel tax system to the regular tax system with its own definition of taxable income, exemptions, and tax rates. It was originally called the "millionaire's tax", in that it targeted only the wealthiest households. The income triggers were not indexed for inflation so as incomes rose the AMT touched more of the middle class. Without periodic Congressional action to temporarily raise the income limits that trigger the AMT, almost a quarter of the United States' 90 million taxpayers could be required to pay the tax."
Quote from noob_trad3r:
My question is why folks from trailer parks making 6 bucks an hour protest the tax increase? Not how the folks making 250K paying more taxes will do good.
Less than 2% of the US households make over 250K.
Rich republicans have found the perfect constituency to do their bidding. These tea party idiots in the name of small government carry water for the rich Republicans and are too dumb to realize it.
1 - The 250k line, isn't. It's 250k in taxable, not gross. You'd have to be making way over to begin to be affected, assuming you have a decent tax accountant. Therefore, we're not talking an upper-middle income couple with two six-figure jobs. We're still talking, by any reasonable measure, the upper class.
2 - The cuts would still apply, for this person, on all income up to that 250k line. Only (taxable) income OVER that line would be taxed at whatever the new rates are.
In sum, the effect will be minimal for 99 44/100% of the population. For those affected, well, it'll hardly bankrupt them.
It will have an appreciable, and cumulative, effect on reducing the deficit, however.
2 - The cuts would still apply, for this person, on all income up to that 250k line. Only (taxable) income OVER that line would be taxed at whatever the new rates are.
In sum, the effect will be minimal for 99 44/100% of the population. For those affected, well, it'll hardly bankrupt them.
It will have an appreciable, and cumulative, effect on reducing the deficit, however.
Quote from Maverick74:
Because most of those folks in trailer parks are working for a small business that makes over 250k a year and when their expenses go up (taxes) they tend to cut labor costs (those folks in the trailer park). So they end up losing their jobs. It's really not that hard to understand.
Total Nonsense, another talking point.
The number of small business owners paying the top bracket is quite low.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...led-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/
And tax cuts for small business owners are proposed separately.
Quote from trefoil:
1 - The 250k line, isn't. It's 250k in taxable, not gross. You'd have to be making way over to begin to be affected, assuming you have a decent tax accountant. Therefore, we're not talking an upper-middle income couple with two six-figure jobs. We're still talking, by any reasonable measure, the upper class.
2 - The cuts would still apply, for this person, on all income up to that 250k line. Only (taxable) income OVER that line would be taxed at whatever the new rates are.
In sum, the effect will be minimal for 99 44/100% of the population. For those affected, well, it'll hardly bankrupt them.
It will have an appreciable, and cumulative, effect on reducing the deficit, however.
I repeat. You are not seeing the forest through the trees. Very few Americans make over 250k a year. But many small businesses do.
If I gave you a choice, would you rather pay more in taxes or lose your job, I would say 100% of the people on this board would rather pay more in taxes. Nobody wants to lose their job. When you raise the costs for small business, people lose their jobs. Most small business are operating on very thin margins. When you raise their operating costs, they cut labor.
It has nothing to do with someone having to pay another $300 on a marginal tax increase. Most people would love to pay 1k more in taxes to keep their 50k a year job. Do the math.
How much more lopsided should it be Gayfly?
Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in â07
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/
Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in â07
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/
Quote from Gayfly1:
Nice try with the old saw. Except that when Bush was in office he lavished the largest income earners with the biggest tax cuts, and disproportionately so. Who was standing up for the little guy then? Certainly not the people who want the little guy to stand up for them now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
...Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.
Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000...
And this after their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years. I think it's a fascinating marvel of propaganda to be able to maneuver the very people who only got the leftovers at the dinner table to now wave the flag on behalf of those who have gorged themselves and are now awaiting their dessert between burps.
Quote from hermit:
Total Nonsense, another talking point.
The number of small business owners paying the top bracket is quite low.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...led-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/
And tax cuts for small business owners are proposed separately.
No, tax deductions for small business owners are proposed separately. I agree, most small businesses do not make a lot of money. I would argue a large percentage make no money. But in that 250k and higher bracket, very few of them are actually individuals that are earning a 250k salary. There are many ways to manipulate the e numbers for both sides, the bottom line is, it negatively effects the economy. And the small pittance the government collects from these people doesn't even pay the interest on our debt.