Come onnnn where's that Wall Street Journal income infographic, come onnnnn
THERE IT IS.
I still can't get over how tone deaf this comic was. "But think of the poor rich people!" Fuck off.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Obama Will Seek to Raise Taxes on Wealthy to Finance Cuts for Middle Class
- Thread starter Trojita
- Start date
- Status
I still can't get over how tone deaf this comic was. "But think of the poor rich people!" Fuck off.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Quit being the voice of reason.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
That's all he can do with this Congress.
So a president whose party doesn't control congress should just remain silent and advocate nothing he can't "executive action" into reality?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Pretty much. He's positioning the democrat platform for the next decade. Whether Hillary's corporatist ass picks much of this up is another story. Of course Obama is a corporatist as well but he's clearly on a populist surge. Politics.
My question is, why wasnt this his priority like 2 or 3 years ago? It surely would have helped not get his face kicked in reneging on his supposed goals leading up to the election. Everyone and their mom knew this had to be done, but all i heard was people besides the ones who should have been talking about it, talking about it.
This is not a new thing. Its just that there's so many corrupt sleazebags in politics these days that even a moderately rightist proposal like this is virtually impossible to pass
This is not a new thing. Its just that there's so many corrupt sleazebags in politics these days that even a moderately rightist proposal like this is virtually impossible to pass
I thought that was simply letting a temporary tax cut expire. Did he actually get legislation voted through that raised taxes? Or did a tax cut that already had an expiration date simply get allowed to expire?
2-3 years ago he was still fighting congress over health care reform and he didn't and does not have the majority to do anything. He is advocating it for the future.
It's a pity nothing will ever pass Congress. I guess just try to throw out as many populist policies as possible and then blame the Republican Congress for not passing shit and taking us to the bring of default several times in the next two years (it's gonna happen).
It'd be nice if it did pass, fucking Capital Gains benefits only the richest of the very rich, the 1%, the .1% and the .001% the most.
Letting the income gap get wider and wider just means we get closer and closer to something really really bad happening. The wealthiest can't seem to see that (aside from your Warren Buffet's or Bill Gates of the world).
It'd be nice if it did pass, fucking Capital Gains benefits only the richest of the very rich, the 1%, the .1% and the .001% the most.
Letting the income gap get wider and wider just means we get closer and closer to something really really bad happening. The wealthiest can't seem to see that (aside from your Warren Buffet's or Bill Gates of the world).
Come onnnn where's that Wall Street Journal income infographic, come onnnnn
THERE IT IS.
I always laugh at the retired couple looking sad that their taxes aren't going up
The way I see it the rich of the US have had 30 years to get their shit together and trickle their money down to job creation and or higher incomes for those at the bottom and middle of their payroll.
They have not done so and that means it's time for government to step in and just take the money back they haven't been taxing the last 30 years. Give the middle and lower class people a break as well as using the money to help educate people more so they can find better jobs and thus pay more taxes - a proper cycle.
Right now what's happening in the US is the rich people and companies are keeping as much of their money out of the US as possible and they're also sitting on whatever they do keep instead of investing it into hiring more people so that the bottom of the economic latter can at least start working. All you need for proof is to look at income disparity levels between the rich and the poor - since we started laying off companies and the rich they've gotten richer and richer every single year - even during the 2008 recession they kept their money. Middle class and lower folk though? they make less money factoring in inflation then they've made since before labor standards were even invented.
They have not done so and that means it's time for government to step in and just take the money back they haven't been taxing the last 30 years. Give the middle and lower class people a break as well as using the money to help educate people more so they can find better jobs and thus pay more taxes - a proper cycle.
Right now what's happening in the US is the rich people and companies are keeping as much of their money out of the US as possible and they're also sitting on whatever they do keep instead of investing it into hiring more people so that the bottom of the economic latter can at least start working. All you need for proof is to look at income disparity levels between the rich and the poor - since we started laying off companies and the rich they've gotten richer and richer every single year - even during the 2008 recession they kept their money. Middle class and lower folk though? they make less money factoring in inflation then they've made since before labor standards were even invented.
What weight would you give each these two influences to a Democrat's policy choices: 1) the voters 2) the corporate donors. And do you think they pull in the same direction?
Forget about high taxes on the wealthy for a second, because I believe Obama would make that happen if he could. My concern is with his and his party's economic policies in general and how they affect the American middle class.
Do you think the Democratic Party has moved to the left, the right or not at all (economically, not socially) since the 1980s? And if there has been a move, has this been recognized by the party's voting constituents?
The definition of "rich"'is what really pisses me off here. I've busted my ass and I am by no means rich but according to Obama I'm rich as fuck. So if living check to check with a mortgage, 1 kid and standard bills means I'm rich then consider me shocked. This will hurt the upper middle class. The actual rich won't even feel it. Thanks Obama.
He would want your capital gains taxes to go up to a less absurdly low rate if you and your wife make more than half a million dollars a year. You might starve!
Link
The Autumn Wind
Let us all weep for you while you "only" make $500k+. Must be tough.
You want this man to skimp on his "bills" by selling 2 of his 5 cars, wearing the same pair of underwear more than once and giving up his personal vineyard? (I'm imagining what you could possibly spend money on beyond 100k a year with just 1 more mouth to feed)
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know why that makes it not count. Republicans wanted him to extend the cuts for everyone, including the rich, and were threatening not to vote for any extension that didn't include the rich. Obama stuck to his guns and got it so only the rich cuts expired.
If Obama is some corporatist double agent, why wouldn't he just go with republicans and extend the tax cuts for the rich?
You should bootstraps harder if you're living paycheck to paycheck at 500k+
Yeah, I don't feel bad for anyone living paycheck to paycheck making 500k a year. What the hell is wrong with that person?
Those $80k cars and $1.3mil houses don't just pay for themselves, yknow.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Well, I think it's important first to understand that these influences aren't independent. Yeah, to some extent donors get what they want by taking advantage of voters' inattention. This is particularly bad on the state level, but in general a lot of little things get passed which the average voter isn't even aware of and wouldn't grasp the significance of anyway because a lobbyist got a politician to include it in a bill. Voters don't like this stuff in the abstract, but they don't exert any pull whatsoever concretely because they're not aware of this stuff as it happens. It contributes to Congress having a low approval rating, but it doesn't do much harm to any particular member.
But the really big stuff is mostly down to corporate interests wielding influence by way of influencing the voters. We've got a major party which is basically all about linking the economic interests of the rich and the cultural values of the white middle class. Both parties have moved to the right since 1980 on economics, and I think this is pretty well explained as the parties just chasing the median voter. What's changed is that a lot of the non-rich have been convinced either that stuff which isn't in their economic interest actually is or that these economic policies are less important than whatever the hot cultural issue is or that these economic policies are cultural issues. All that money that went to Romney (and Obama, to be fair) was mostly not spent tricking voters into voting for someone whose policies they disagreed with. It was spent convincing them that the parts they disagreed with weren't so bad, or even by convincing them that what they thought was bad was actually good.
The parties have moved to the right economically because labor is divided along racial lines. Back when FDR was around, you had black people voting for the clearly more racist party and for their economic self-interest. Now a lot of white laborers vote on abortion or gay marriage or just plain racial resentment and against their economic self-interest. To some extent this is just an artifact of what our political coalitions look like, but we've had these coalitions for long enough that many white laborers don't actually prefer the Democrats' economic policies.
I read it and it's disgusting. I'm trying to support my family and save for retirement and this shit only hurts that cause. I'm lucky we were just able to pay off our auto loans a couple months back. But the fucking student debt might as well be a mortgage in and of itself. So essentially I'll be at a higher tax rate just because I barely make more than 500k? Absurd. It'd be different if I were even at 750k but essentially 505k for 3 people and another on the way with the already absurd health cost, cost of living etc. it's just not helping and I'm pissed.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Maybe you shouldn't try to live beyond your means
Vicetrailia
Member
Yup, you're joking.
You're not helping your argument when there are people making a 5th of what you claim to make, have the same types of debt and get along just fine.
This reeks of trolling or someone who is very, very blind to the reality of. 90% of americans.
You realize taxes don't work like that right? You'll pay higher taxes on the 5k you make over 500k...
This is either terrible trolling, a complete misunderstanding of what progressive taxation is, or a complete delusion. Or, a combination of all three.
Link
The Autumn Wind
So you're both living beyond your means and don't realize how taxes work.
I'm not though. I don't have a lavish house or cars. And I don't spend a lot on random things every month like clothes jewelry etc. I can't even remember the last time I bought myself a new wardrobe. I pay all my bills, save for retirement and the only time I spend extra are for birthdays, holidays etc like 99% of the country. I'm not struggling but why do you have to be struggling to be considered not rich? I say I live paycheck to paycheck because essentially I'd start depleting my savings after about 2 months without my job. That doesn't make me rich at all. That makes the same as most Americans. If I missed 4 paychecks for example, my house would be in foreclosure within a year. That's not rich.
You hear that? Its the worlds smallest violin playing just for you.
Get out of here with that winey crap. You make 10X the amount of the average american, and at least 5X the amount of 90% of the people in this thread. I don't mind you make that much money, but don't go around complaining while there are people on this forum wondering if they will be able to feed their families tonight (yes there have been threads on that very subject). If you are worried about money, mortgage your current house, and get a smaller one, and get less expensive cars.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
How do capital gains taxes work with income limits anyway? To me it does sound like it taxes all of your capital gains at the higher rate if your income is just past the limit.
But just don't sell your stuff until you're retired and making less income, and problem solved.
But just don't sell your stuff until you're retired and making less income, and problem solved.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Assuming you aren't trolling, what are you spending 505k on?
Empyrean Heaven
Member
They're all about tax cuts for the 1%. Lower their taxes and they, in theory, have more money to pay their employees and improve their businesses. Despite the fact in reality they often times use that money on themselves.
Link
The Autumn Wind
It happens. Though perhaps you should look into changing your lifestyle if you're struggling while earning that much.
Gambit 1138
Banned
Can't executive orders be overturned by the next President? You know the new one coming in in less than 2 years?
Yes, that's why people need to vote. I think I've said this already in this thread.
Can you generalize and tell us what your monthly expenses are? I really cannot fathom how someone could burn through that sort of income monthly and claim that he is "frugal"
The utility of every additional dollar earned is less than the dollar earned before it.
for instance, when you're a kid, you have 0 dollars. Going from 0 dollars to, say, 30K allows you to live on your own, to have a place to rent, food, clothes, electronics, a vehicle.
Getting a raise from 30K to 60K? Probably has a lot bigger effect on your lifestyle than going from 1 million to 1.03 million, or even from 1 million to 2 million.
So, if you tax someone making 30K at 15%, that's going to have a much bigger effect on them than taxing someone with a million dollars 15%. It's inherently regressive.
Plus, the more money you have, the easier it is to make money, as well - you can invest, pay for more necessities off of investment income/interest alone, rather than time and labor. The more money you have, the less useful additional money will be, but the easier it is for you to acquire additional money, as well. Progressive taxation IS flatter than a flat tax system when accounting for these factors.
Well to be honest things are a bit shaky at work so I've been overly stressed and for the past 8 months I've had to handle some additional expenses regarding my wife's family. It's all been super stressful and frustrating so when I saw the thread title I skimmed and freaked. Very irrational of course. But when youre solely responsible for multiple people it can be a bit jarring.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
This reminds me of the dentist and lawyer saying they would pay a lot more in taxes, because they make $201,000. Relight doesn't seem to know the difference between marginal vs effective tax rate.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Going by this logic, why try to ever pass any legislation at all?
Come onnnn where's that Wall Street Journal income infographic, come onnnnn
THERE IT IS.
where do these numbers come from? 260k a year?
If i made 230k a year i'd gladly pay more taxes.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Advocating doesn't produce results. He should do the best with the powers he has than worry about his public perception.
- Status