What's rich?

[piece-itpete]

Lol. Looking at Wiki (2004 stats) only 1.5% earns MORE than $250k.

The median US household earns $45k.

Less than 16% make more than $100k.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

So, 98.5% of us would be getting a tax cut and the top 1.5% aren't, then?

I know this would seem backwards to a Republican as their mantra is to throw more money at those who are already drowning in it, but it sounds like a good thing to me.

What is it that I'm missing?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

But I thought that the Dems were the party of the working man.

Why should us shlubs subsidize folks making $150K+?

Could it be that that the Dems are working for the rich? But then, they should be taking favors from big oil and having closed door discussions with pharmaceuticals.

Oh wait....

Pete

[merrylander]

Much depends upon what part of the country you live in. Frex this property we live on is valued for taxes at $630,000. So what kind of salary would you need to afford an 80/20 mortgage? Rents hereabouts go pretty high as well, $1500 a month is considered low.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

But I thought that the Dems were the party of the working man.

Why should us shlubs subsidize folks making $150K+?

Could it be that that the Dems are working for the rich? But then, they should be taking favors from big oil and having closed door discussions with pharmaceuticals.

Oh wait....

Pete

We're not "subsidizing" them if we get our cut as well. We're only "subsidizing" the "rich" if they get a cut and we don't or end up paying more.

If this works as advertized, then by your numbers it would amount to an across-the-board cut for all but the 1.5% at the top. Actually, if the top 1.5% see an increase of taxes, then could it not be said that they are subsidizing the rest of us?

Again; What am I missing and how is this a bad thing?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

I'm wondering how this current government comes up with $250K being the cutoff, and then claiming they're raising taxes on the rich. Plays well to the masses, I guess, and the rich Dems don't have to clamor publically for a cut, and get one anyway. Very sneeky, no?

I understand what you're saying Rob, but those neighborhoods are a minority.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I understand what you're saying Rob, but those neighborhoods are a minority.

Pete

The minority yes but not uncommon at all.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I understand what you're saying Rob, but those neighborhoods are a minority.

Pete

Minority or not it takes that kind of money to live in the area. If people working here were getting $50,000 per year then they would have one hell of a long commute.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

The minority yes but not uncommon at all.

Out here Rob's property is a million plus, several million in certain areas like near SF or LA. To rent such a place would cost anywhere from 3 to 5 K.

John

[piece-itpete]

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that less than 16% of the US makes more than $100k.

Reality check: both parties work for the rich. The Dems hide it.

Pete