What's rich?

[merrylander]

So in other words because we have this valuable property, through no fault of our own I might add, we do not deserve a break? We paid $45,000 for the 4.5 acre lot and $152,000 for a 2850 sq ft house. That I could afford, but there is no way I could afford it now. Calling me rich is the funniest line I have heard all day. If I get a tax break you are not paying for it so just what is your problem?

[piece-itpete]

This is INCOME not property. The Dems argument is that $249k isn't rich, and that the rich aren't paying their share.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

This is INCOME not property. The Dems argument is that $249k isn't rich, and that the rich aren't paying their share.

Pete

If you look at where the curve on tax savings takes off, 250,000 is a reasonable place to start, but $200,000 is better. I would prefer it to be lower. Here are the figures:

People in the 4th quintile of income (an average yearly income of $81,978), those in the top 20-40% of income earners, received an average yearly tax break of $2,124 under the Bush tax cuts.
The savings for those between 90 and 95% (Average income $197K) was $5510.
The savings for the next 4% (average income $346K) was $9680;
The savings for those whose income was in the 99th percentile to the 99.9 percentile (Average income $1.1Mil) was $49,201;
Finally for those in the top tenth of the top 1% (average income $8Mil), the savings was $372,200.

The curve starts to get really steep at around $200K. Those who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts were the ones making over $200K, so that would be a reasonable cutoff point. I would suggest that this is a more reasonable way of looking it than what is or isn't rich. Because the share of the tax savings started to really go up after $200K, those making more than that benefited the most, and therefore should benefit the least under any new tax plan.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

This is INCOME not property. The Dems argument is that $249k isn't rich, and that the rich aren't paying their share.

Pete

I thought class envy was supposed to be a Democratic trait, Pete. The bottom line is that this whole thing is just goosing an already FUBAR tax code.

Also, taxable income isn't really what differentiates rich from not rich.

[Grumpy]

Everyones taxes could double and it still would not cover our countries expenses.

[BlueStreak]

We see what you're saying, Pete. We just don't care, so long as we get one too. It's when only the wealthy get a tax cut that out panties get all twisted up.

Now, do you understand?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Everyones taxes could double and it still would not cover our countries expenses.

Not within a single year, but over ti.......Nah, the more you give'em the more they spend. Scratch that.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Not within a single year, but over ti.......Nah, the more you give'em the more they spend. Scratch that.

Dave

Yeah, there are some portions of the world where we haven't carried democracy - at the point of a rifle.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

D I don't know where those numbers came from but my direct income where I last worked was $75,000 per year, Dubya's tax cut mad a $5.00 difference per paycheck for a grand total of $120 per year. Other income put me well over $100,000 so much for that great tax cut.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

We see what you're saying, Pete. We just don't care, so long as we get one too. It's when only the wealthy get a tax cut that out panties get all twisted up.

Now, do you understand?

Dave

Yep

But as was pointed out, I'm not a class warrior. If I get a 5% cut that's great, and I don't begruge folks making more than me getting a 5% tax cut either, fair is fair.

So if I save $10 on a 5% cut and another guy saves $1000, it stands to reason he's STILL paying waaaay more taxes than me.

I'm just pointing out that the Dems are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Pete