Is there anyone here who didn’t see this coming?

“Congress just doesn’t want to let tax breaks for millionaires expire”

I don’t consider individuals making $200,000 and married couples making $250,000.as rich or millionaires. Allowing the tax break to expire will affect them, mostly small business owners.

No tears for someone making 200,000.

Wrong

But we’re supposed to re-elect these gutless, brain-dead bastards because the Repugs are like, really scary!

Nope! Most won’t agree with me, but the best thing the Dems can do is let that Bush tax bill expire. Just let it die! Then they can immediately go on a new Middle Class Tax reform bill.

No. You’re wrong. Not true. I know many making that much or more.

Small businesses are mostly not adversely affected by this, either, and most of what are called “small businesses” in the USA are not small and make waaaaaaaay more than $250k per year. Way more. You’re misinformed.

Trick Question? ha ha

Answer: NO!

I understand how frustrating it can be for someone who makes $40-$50K a year, or even has a combined household income of $80-$100K, to think of those that make $250K as rich. And that applies even more to people who are out of work, have limited or no job prospects, and see their lives vanishing before their eyes. But believe me, as someone who has made over $250K in a few good years — and $30-$40K in most others — those at the $250K combined household income level are not villains. They have much more in common with the lower end of the income scale than they do with those who are really well-off.

Due to the wild divergence in local cost of living, $200K in parts of CA, NY, MA, etc., is like $80K someplace else. Last time I looked at the Census Bureau’s cost of living index, NYC was 2-1/4 times more expensive than Denver, Phoenix, or Portland, OR. For lots of small and medium-size cities, the multiplier can be 3X.

After years of listening to House Democrats heartrendingly bemoan “the Bush tax cuts for the rich”…

At last…the emperor has no clothes.

Speaker Pelosi casts the deciding vote to adjourn the House rather than have her caucus actually debate (let alone, cast a vote on) what “the rich” means…a mere five weeks ahead of November’s midterms.

Who are these people, anyway?

Under Bush and now Obama, “small business” has rec’d many tax breaks and incentives. Besides, what we think of as a small iz, is not what the Repugs think. They think things like GE and Goldman Sacs is small biz. That is until they are too darn big to fail!

Do you seriously think the GOP is suddenly changing their minds and will now vote? They have said it so many times it does not need to be repeated. They refuse to vote and approve ANY bill coming from the Majority. You can forget it, cause it won’t happen.

BooHoNer is tooting and acting all offended just because he thinks it will make somebody else want to vote for the Just Say No party.

If you are self-employed, making $100,000, each additional dollar is federally taxed at 28% + 15% for FICA and medicare => total of 43%. If you are making $400,000, each additional dollar is taxed at 35%, with no more FICA. Is that right? As long as FICA contributions (employee and employer) are limited to lower income brackets, everyone making over that amount (currently $106,800) should pay a higher tax rate (15% higher for the self-employed) just to be a flat tax. And this doesn’t even take the reduced capital gains tax rate into account!

Small businesses are mostly not adversely affected by this, either, and most of what are called “small businesses” in the USA are not small and make waaaaaaaay more than $250k per year.

To a certain degree, you’re both right. As KO rightfully pointed out, there are many, many mega-businesses which are structured as a massive number of interconnected S-Corps and other small business entities. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of genuine small businesss out there who will be affected. The local dry cleaner, the local hardware store battling Home Depot or Lowes, the independent auto body shops and repair garages, etc., will get hammered. Not to mention those micro-businesses people operate out of their homes.

I was not clear, sorry. I don’t think of people who make 200,000 as rich (not in the world of Goldman Sachs) but they are certainly not going without the things they need. There are children going hungry right here in our country and people making 200k should be ashamed for complaining.

OMG. I am so sick of this argument.
It isn’t the point that $250k doesn’t “feel” rich, or even that you might not continue to be so well off, or that it isn’t that much in expensive cities.

The point is that that level of income is MORE than the income of the OTHER 98 PER CENT of the population.

Rich is most definitely relative. But it’s relative to the rest of the population.

Don’t tell me it isn’t. That’s self-delusion. Face it – if you earn more than 98% of the population, YOU ARE RICH.

Rich enough to pay another 4% of your income ABOVE $250k.
And that’s what we’re talking about.

WOW, let punish people who make $200,000/$250,000 per year. As an African American, who came from a very poor environment, I am thankful I didn’t grow-up in today’s America. I was taught to work hard to be successful. What do we tell our kids by having an attitude of resentment toward people who are successful. I guest don’t be successful because its bad!

Exactly. Thanks for that explanation. People at higher incomes aren’t paying FICA, among other tax breaks.

This is what many voters don’t understand. Plus “small businesses” – which are often not small at all (it’s a misnomer based on S corp status) – have many other tax breaks and incentives.

Voters who “cry” about those making $250k or more “suffering” are not getting the whole picture.

And I happen to live in a very high cost of living area – SoCal – and make far less than $250k. Yet I’m able to live well enough (thankfully I am still employed). It’s specious to use the argument that if you live in a high cost of living area, you will be just so overburdened if you’re making $250k or more. Buy a slightly cheaper car is one way to go. Most of the people I see in my area drive incredibly expensive cars (and back in the day a lot were giant gas guzzlers, too). It’s all a question of priorities.

believe me, I don’t feel sorry for anyone making $250k or more, and I do know many in that bracket. They’re doing just fine and can afford to pay a fair share.

It isn’t punishment to ask for a reasonable rate of taxes.

Taxes are what we all must pay for the services we want.

I am also sick to death of talk of fair tax rates as “punishment” for success.

If you believe that, you have drunk the kool-aid, and you should be ashamed.

Seriously! There is a difference between personal income tax and small business tax. Until you have proof that the business tax is going to be increased by the expiration of the Bush bill, let’s just discuss personal tax.

Those truly “small” businesses of which you speak still enjoy a lot of tax breaks and incentives, which is fine. With respect, I disagree with you on this one.

Well you sure have your GOP talking points down, I’ll give you that. Might be worth the effort to look up your url and find out if it ends in .gov.

NOBODY is dissing successful people that make 250,000.00 or more.

You know what, you just can’t read comprehensibly. Go talk with your friends on the GOPterra sites.

It’s not just income taxes.

47 rank-and-file Democrats urged Congressional leaders to maintain lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains that are also due to expire on Dec. 31.

Paying a fair, or even progressive tax, in this wonderful, prosperous country of ours, is not punishment. If you think it is, just make a lower wage, and you won’t have to pay the high taxes (except, of course, FICA, property tax, sales tax, park fees, road tolls, license taxes, etc.). The total federal taxes for a person making $400,000 is a lower percentage than for those making $100,000. See my post above. It just doesn’t seem like the fair America I was raised in. (no, I’m not AA, but was lower middle class)

BTW the vast majority of poor people aren’t poor because they are lazy. Until you get that idea out of your head you are no better than the racists or sexists or religious bigots. Such a belief is the definition of prejudice.

It’s great to be successful and it’s great to be rich. But everyone should pay their fair share of taxes or our country won’t survive. People in need should be assisted so that they can have a job and better their lives.

I agree. The framing of the debate that somehow all the “welfare slackers” are “punishing” the “wealthy” who worked “so hard” is bull hockey.

Loads of people work darn hard these days, and many work 2 or 3 or even 4 jobs and still find it hard to make ends meet. Yes people who make a higher income – over the $250k level – probably DO mostly work “very hard,” they DO deserve their income.

But we’re talking about very small increase in income taxes – and on people who pay LESS proportionately in FICA than do those at the lower end of the salary scale. This is NOT punishment. It’s about being fair.

Not that long ago, it was considered a patriotic duty to pay fair taxes – and the progressive rates went much higher – because it was for the good of our nation’s welfare. Now: not so much.

Stop acting like this is a “punishment.” It’s not. It’s being fair. It’s for the good of our nation.

Way to go, Margaret! ;-)

And let’s remember, all you folks saying “but I make $250k but I’m can’t afford any more taxes” that you, AT $250k will not pay any more tax if the current “cuts” expire. Your tax will stay the same.

Only if you make $251k next time will you owe any more tax, and then ONLY on the $1000 above $250k.

These arguments are made without any thought; just knee-jerk repetition reinforced by self-pity.

The President/CEO of an S Corp (small biz corp) typically pays taxes on net profits and salaries. Salary alone is subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes. None of the profits that are not salary are subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Forty-seven House Democrats insisted to Pelosi in a letter that Congress extend capital gains and dividend tax cuts for the rich

I think I can predict 47 House Democrats who are going to get some extra DNC cash and visits from Obama and Biden to help with reelection.

Then we’ll be told that Obama’s hands are tied with this Congress.

What do we tell our kids by having an attitude of resentment toward people who are successful. I guest don’t be successful because its bad!

Don’t take it personal. Hang out around here a while and you’ll find out that there’s resentment enough for everyone.

I am not concern with the tax, its the attitude and resentment toward success. Read the comments, the headlines, etc. They don’t inspire a young minds to be successful. I don’t see that being the message of today, that’s all!

PascoBill, just a tiny quibble about your comment: You contrast “fair or even progressive” income tax.
But in this context “progressive” doesn’t mean “liberal, generous,” or any sort of social meaning.

It merely means the rates of tax paid “progress” from lower to higher rates as income rises.
The U.S. has a “progressive” system of income tax as opposed to a “flat rate income tax.”
Nothing to do with fairness in the word “progressive.” Just a literal description.

Because succes is always measured by your tax bracket, right?

Not true.

If the cuts expire, all tax rates will increase. The lowest rate is currently 10%, it will jump to 15% on the first $26,000 of income and up from there.

Right. In the English language, small business includes partnerships, LLCs, sole proprietorships, self-employed, independent contractors and small S-corps. In politics and the IRS, we include all S-corps, to include the billionaires. That way, you can say “small business” and mean “mega businesses owned by individual billionaires”.

We’re only saying that people should pay their fair share as should corporations. They get a free ride and the middle class shoulders the burden. I read that in 2009 Exxon paid NO taxes. Do you want to pick up the tab that they should have paid?

Yeah, and what are all you progs doin’ to help get the message to congress about ending the Bushie-43 give away? Why they agree with David Dayen that Obama “left us BOOHOO!” and now we’re just gonna sit on the sidelines and bitch, bitch, bitch.

Ask yourself this…Where you – the sanctamonous progs like Dayden – last sumnmer when the Teatards turned it into the “Summer of TOWN MAULS” against HCR. I didn’t see any of you joining me there on the picket lines in front my reps offices DEMANDING they vote for a PO and meaningful HCR. I’m in AZ but I still stood up and fought the fight by “taking it to the streets” even though it might have been a futile effort having 2 of the biggest rethug crooks on Capital Hill – McCain & Kyl as my reps.

The cocktail party yappers here at Firedog should get out into the streets and on the firing line IN FRONT of those waivering, spineless dems to get things done. Posting snarky Obama remarks IS NOT taking action by the way.

Remember, if you really want something done do it yourself. Apparently that something that is below David Dayen and the rest of you pee-pant “limo liberals” – After all if the progressive agenda makes headway what will you have to click your tongues and bitch about…

Nobody is talking about resentment except for you (and Bill OReilly, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) Progressive Taxation is supposedly based on a system of fairness.

Lower income people tend to pay a disproportially higher percentage of their wages in overall taxes. Higher Federal Taxes for higher earners is only fair.

so what else is new? didn’t we ALL know the dems were (a) not going to vote before election and (b)more importantly, they will extend all the tax cuts.Dah, no brainer here.

“Young minds” are happy to have a job, any job, now.

Productivity has been up an up in our country, along with remuneration of the CEOs and others who drive the workers to work harder, work more.

Wages have been flat for a couple of generations now.

It used to be that businesses cared about the welfare of their workers. Now all they care about is driving workers to the edge with demands for more work for less wages so they can pay themselves more.

Let’s get back to the ethics of Main St. not cave to the Wall St. crowd.

Has nothing to with resentment toward success.
Has everything to do with resentment toward increasingly unfair treatment and increasing income inequality, strongly encouraged by government (including tax) policies geared toward directing more income toward those who least need it, and piling more burdens on those who can least afford it.
And honey, I’ve been reading, and writing, comments here for years.
Read some more yourself. For example, read more about how tax cuts and polcies have favored the rich. Read about how the top 1% of income earners now get 85% of the national income. 85% Is that fair? It’s new, too.
That you think it’s fine, or that that is how it’s always been, shows your ignorance of history and economics. Your every comment shows, as I said, you’ve drunk the kool-aid, bought the arguments of those who resent the less-well-off, and prod society toward blaming them for everything they can find wrong in this country.
I don’t go that way. Suit yourself- keep voting for the Republicans and when or if you find yourself unable to earn that $250k, or even $40k, see how much help you get.

I was only referring to the ones on the over-$250k. Was not discussing the rest of the cuts.

So, you know my life story? I chose a different path from many of friends who like you are political. I taught to work hard, if you call that a talking points, I don’t know what say.

When I started typing Ds are too dumb to live, a year or more ago, I had no idea they could get THIS bad.

You have no idea who you’re talking to.
Obviously, you were not here during the time period you refer to. This is a group of people who get out there on the street as well as read and comment.

Just go shut the f**k up until you know what you’re talking about.

[modnote: STFU is unacceptable.]

What you seem to have enormous difficulty grasping is that the “resentment” you see is manufactured in your own mind. The people here resent rich people being unwilling to pay taxes in order to support the environment that allowed them to be successful certainly. Why should you as a “successful” person not have to pay your fair share? Is a flat tax rate fair? If person A made $10,000 a year and person B made $1,000,000 a year, can person A afford to pay $1,000 of that gross as easily as person B can afford to pay $100,000? Person B still has $900,000 but person A only has $9,000 to live on. You said you were poor, you must know what a blow that would be but you would increase person A’s taxes in order for person B to keep more. How is that “fair”? As far as resentment based on “jealously” or whatever, methinks you doth protest overmuch.

Really? Work hard and we promise we’ll tax you less? Is that the message here?

It’s a question of fairness. Why should people who earn less pay a bigger fraction of their equally hard earned wages than you?

Married at $250,000 today pay $60,000 tax

(I know it’s after deductions, etc. but it’s for comparison purposes)

Married at $250,000 after cuts expire $73,000 tax.

More than a dollar.

If you work so hard, what are you doing blogging in the middle of a work day?

If a business owner has taxable personal income of $250K from that business I wouldn’t call his/her business small. We’re not talking gross revenue for the business here.

I agree corporations should pay taxes.

Exactly how I meant progressive, but I didn’t mean “fair tax” as in the “Fair Tax Act”, which is a consumption tax. I meant fair, as in “treating everyone fairly”. If that is possible!

The progressive taxes provide higher rates as income rises (the rate progresses as income does). No, I didn’t mean “liberal” when I wrote progressive. And I don’t think a progressive (increasing at higher income brackets) tax is punishment. We’ve had a much more progressive income tax during periods of very good prosperity.

I thought of replying to bel9′s nonsense about how making the rich pay for the infrastructure they demand – size of military, police, and quality of services to their world – was “punishment” for being successful – but decided she was just a GOP clerk doing what the boss asked her to do.

Meanwhile we wait on the session to be after the election – lame-ducks rarely fly and Obama has shown himself to be a con job with no backbone that will not use the power of the office for even that which is popular if the GOP oppose.

I expect nothing from the future two years but more screwing of the left and more screwing of America – hard to get up for the Nov 2010 election since it is hard to see what would be different if the Democrats retain the House – other that the lack of entertaining GOP investigations of Obama.

Meanwhile no action on the tax bill – if coupled with extension of the marriage penalty fix and child credit increase to 1000 per child – would not be a bad result – indeed no action on anything is not a bad result period full stop. But I am dreaming again – pretending that the Democratic Party are not whores to the rich and corporate. Sigh – well I have been pretending for 3 score and 10 so it is late to change now – and my locals are actually good Dems – so I will vote – but with zero expectations.

Ah, the classic activist message board cred flex.

Therein is a key element of Rethuglican word trickery that Democrats have not made any effort to expose.

It is true that billionaires hide among so-called small businesses. A single fat cat can preside over a hundred or more small corporations. He is a small business owner. And he needs low taxes so he can offshore more employment.

I never said the tax would be “a dollar.”

Quibble all you want, but don’t argue against stuff that wasn’t said, please.

Spare me the horseshit, please.

What percentage of the overall tax collected by the government should be paid by people making $200,000/$250,000 or more?

(spurt) tee-hee!

Okay; it just sounded that way because of the way you phrased it, contrasting “fair” and “progressive.”

What with all Glenn Beck’s efforts to demonize the word progressive, I was beginning to wonder if some folks did understand it’s meaning that way in regard to income tax.

hahahahahaha!!!!

Related to this, Robert Reich was just on NPR earlier today saying that our extreme Income Disparity is hurting the economy. Basically our income disparity is as bad as it was leading up to the Great Depression.

Not exactly a news flash but nice to hear some truthiness with some actual truth in it on NPR(as opposed to David Brooks speaking from the gut).

I call your belief that hard work has the inevitable result of being wealthy a talking point. It’s just not true. You might call me a liar but I have done work hard enough to kill many people. Between 1976 and 1985 I was in a ditch doing pipeline work while attending college and from 1986 to 1991 I could be found on the flight deck of a Navy carrier. Don’t come at me with your talking points. You have no idea who you’re talking to.

“For comparison purposes” is a con job in your post

the offer is 250,000 of gross income – and at that level there is no change.

Why do the con-job post?

Dragon! Care to remind MesaMick of your own street cred?

OTOH, why bother? He’ll believe what he wants to believe anyway, right?

You guys are talking about two different things. If the Bush tax cuts across the board expire, almost everyone’s rates go up. If the Dem’s pass the extension of the cuts for the middle and lower income earners (under $250,000), then only the upper income earners pay more, and only on what they make over $250,000.

(numbers approximate, don’t take into account deductions, etc.)

And let’s remember, all you folks saying “but I make $250k but I’m can’t afford any more taxes” that you, AT $250k will not pay any more tax if the current “cuts” expire. Your tax will stay the same.

Only if you make $251k next time will you owe any more tax, and then ONLY on the $1000 above $250k.

Good point, you didn’t say it would be a dollar more if the cuts expire, you said it would stay the same.

Wronger than I thought.

And let’s just be clear, we are not talking about changing the tax system to tax only those who make $250K, you know?

Sometimes it sounds as though people think that’s the plan. So ridiculous.

Well since they have 84% of the wealth, maybe they should have to pay 84% of the taxes collected.

Just as I was beginning to buck up…

Let’s talk again on October 3rd. hmmkay? Evidently the cameras don’t follow all of us, just the ones that are backed by Eggheads like the Koch’s.

I never mention “making the rich pay for the infrastructure” in any comments. I guest thats how things are embellished. I did say I didn’t think its good to have negative attitudes and resentment toward success. Also, I stated I didn’t think individuals making $200,000 or couples making $250,000 were rich.

Mesa Mick, it’s been a long time since I have been to a cocktail party and if you would just read what we’re saying you understand. Read all the comments and try to see what we really stand for.
Sorry, I have to leave now. My limo is waiting. s/

Love ya, SD.

Hey, here’s another heaping helping of HS:

A commenter on FB was bashing Boxer (a Fiorina fan if that’s not HS I don’t know what is). Anyway, he claimed that the return on every dollar going to WDC during Reagan’s tenure as guv was the highest it’s ever been. St. Ronnie!!! Funny, I thought the credit for state pork goes to the senators. Am I right about that? So I looked it up and both Senators at the time were Dems!!! Cranston and Tunney. Not that this reagan fan was right, but if he is, then it’s the dems he should be thanking.

Yer right. Nothing there of any substance. Just another pisser and moaner.

ROFLMAO!

good one

Obama could not have fucked up this tax debate more if he did it on purpose.

You don’t try to modify an exisiting Republican Tax Cuts Agenda, unless you want to wear it as an anvil around your neck.

There should have been NO discussion about the Bush Tax Cuts. Let them expire.

Have an Obama tax plan.

Ok, I thought we were talking extension of existing Bush tax cuts vs. revert to 2001 levels.

I heard talk of a new option for tax the rich only, but I didn’t think that was this conversation.

No, no. St Ronnie did that IN SPITE OF the Democratic Senators. duh.

Ya know, from the first response you made to here it’s been a huge circle. I’m not going to ask how much you make a year because that is personal. However, I think it would benefit your comments and those responding if you could just tell us what your occupation is. Are you a business owner and if so what size? Are you a contract/freelancer?

correct, I don’t know who you are and like wise you don’t know my story. From your post you seem like a person who worked hard and I respect that.

Now, now, credit where credit is due. I saw this coming when Harry Reid came along and said how he was going to make this a huge issue pre-election. Reid deserves some credit. It’s only fair to all Scyphozoa.

Bloggers like MesaMick like to troll here to bitch at the “professional left” because we’re not out on the streets with our signs and pitchforks every single live-long second of the day. And bc – in the bogger’s fantasy world – we “prof left” aren’t doing that, then we’re just useless wastes of time.

oooo-kay

Well if we’re so dang useless and a waste of time, then why are we being blasted (almost daily anymore) by Obamaco? If we’re puny nothings, then the PTB should feel free to simply ignore us, yet they’re not. Wonder why.

And finally, there have been various leftie rallies this year, and some of us from FDL have faithfully turned out for them. Too bad so sad that the corporate-owned rightwing media never shows the leftie side of the picture. It’s not my fault that the corporate-owned rightwing media is a propogranda machine for the corporations. The left was out there marching last summer and protesting at Town Halls across the nation. If they weren’t at your town hall… oh well. Just bc we didn’t make it into the “nooz” media doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Get. a. Clue.

Do you really believe that?

I never claimed to know your life story but your opinion that hard work always = lots of money speaks very eloquently.

YOO-HOO! Yeah, Man! I second that emotion! I’ve said it before but guess it got lost in Beckistan.

I know that the top 20% of earners in the country hold 84% of the overall wealth, yes.

Wow.

How much evidence is it going to take for folks to realize these incumbant Democrats are just NOT Democrats, even if they do have a D after their name? I could get behind the whole my party good or bad thing a little more (never gonna buy it totally though) if at least the D party was full of actual Democrats.

But these D’s just are not real Democrats. Their is NO justification for continuing the tax cuts to the rich. NONE. The public favors ending them by a huge margin, so it isn’t about votes. And there is NO justification for continuing to tax capital earnings less than labor earnings under the old meme of it spurs economic growth. Reams of data show the affect is somewhere between none and too hard to measure.

There is only ONE reason they want to do this. They represent the wealthy just like the Republicans. And that is NOT a Democrat. Democrats are supposed to represent the little guy.

Yep. People like that and NorskFlamethrower love to come along and badmouth us for sitting around typing on a computer but they never explain why they are sitting there….typing on a computer.

Yep, yep. Can we talk Lie-For-Them and Spec-inyoureyetor? Wonder why we don’t feel like we are represented by Dems?

Punish? Do you think making and enforcing a progressive tax code is punishment? There are a whole slew of other countries out there, and most of them have a progressive tax code. Are they being “punished” in those countries??

Geez, wonder what you’ll consider a fee for car registration. Punishment for doing well enough to own a car?

So true! They won’t even let you know what their occupation is? I mean really! What did you go to school for? Are you doing that now?

They never answer.

I could probably accept real Democrats without empire, but the Democrats I know, have always been war mongers. I understand Kucinich and Sanders attempting to work from within, and they have had their successes, but the futility of such an endeavor is guaranteed simply because it embodies a multi generational effort.

Climate change, population explosion, mass migrations, mass starvations, pandemics, mass unemployment, growing inequality, endless wars, etc…pretty fucked up prospects, if you ask me. But that is exactly what we’re confronted with. Yet, Multinational Corporations (the business of America is Business),The Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Ag, Big Pharma, will not relent their profits. An ever augmenting domestic security apparatus of Big Government will be required to maintain the status quo, and such will be done. Orwell was a wise visionary man…

Whomever we send to represent our rights and ‘demands’ will continue to be marginalized and contained, while their presence will lend a patina of legitimacy to the Government. Twenty more years of a downward trajectory? On many levels un-fucking-sustainable!

heh This is my 50th year working and I’m still poor but then I’ve gained and learned things no amount of money can buy. I’m certainly not in the “Look, I’ve got all this shit, see how successful I am” crowd. Most of that shit came on borrowed money anyhow.

And yeah, I’m posting from work. Such a bad boy I am.

Bravo! (clapping)

I’m constantly yelling at the tv, when I hear that phrase “moderate Democrat Ben Nelson/Blanche Lincoln/Kent Conrad etc. etc.” XX is NOT a Democrat!

And if Dems were a real party, those pseudo-dems would find their arms twisted so hard on every vote they would be voting the (alleged) party position pretty much every time.
That Reid and Obama let them get away with voting against Democratic bills is as much a part of my anger as Obama not trying on…well, on every issue.

If I hear one more time, “the votes just weren’t there from the start,”…I wanna know why the leadership wasn’t out there trying to make people CHANGE their votes?

Okay, climbing down now. I need to relax somehow – had a job interview this morning, on the way to which I got stopped by a cop (talked myself into a mere warning and made the interview just on time), and then these trolls show up…….

What people with money seem to forget is that food costs the same, regardless of what you earn. Gasoline, electricity, medicine, water, insurance, licensing fees,, etc, all these things costs the same whether a person makes a million dollars a year or a thousand dollars a year. If a person eats $1,000 worth of food a year, that’s 10% of the income of a person who makes $10,000 but it’s just just 0.1% of the income for the millionaire. Now, who can afford to pay more in taxes?

Dash back to the previous thread.

There’s new posts at the bottom that require a Mag-O-thrashing.

I agree hard work does not always lead to success or a lot of money.

Especially on procedural votes.

It used to be a given that you had to vote with the party leadership (in both parties) on procedural votes. You could vote your conscience on actual legislation and other matters, but on procedural votes you were expected to toe the party line so that the party in the majority could make the wheels turn.

And cloture is a procedural vote.

Oh, and you know, if we’re going to get specific – in many cases, food and gasoline and insurance cost the poor more.

I can still remember when I discovered this, on my first time working regularly in a low-income minority neighborhood. Shocked to discover that gas was appreciably higher (so long ago, average was still under $1.00/gal) than in my student neighborhood. Groceries cost more – couldn’t figure out why – overhead higher, cost of insurance to the store, etc., etc.; only got worse as supermarkets began deserting the neighborhood altogether in the late ’70′s.
Poor folks are often stuck with those higher costs because they are too poor to own a car, but if they do have one, it’s likely to be older, requiring more repairs, and insurance is more expensive because in poor neighborhoods, cars are more likely to get stolen or damaged (at least according to the insurance actuaries).

The number of ordinary expenses that actually end up costing those with low incomes more than the cost to middle-class people is just astonishing.
And comfortably-off people complain about resentment. The lingering belief that anyone can get rich themselves is the only reason we don’t have out and out class warfare. And the disinformation campaigns of the last 30+ years.

It’s true. Inexplicably they charge the poor more. Maybe that’s because they have less choice. Isn’t unbridled capitalism wonderful?

Your comment is true if you’re talking about basic necessities. But over simplified if you consider people with money live a different lifestyle. I lived in a trailer when I was 20, rode my bike to work, elec. and water were minimal, no meds, etc.

Most people advance at income and lifestyle at the same time. If the lawyer lived in a dump and wore sweats to work, his advancement would likely be limited. $1000 suit for him, baggy sweats for the next guy. Not the same. Reverse of your food analogy.

Yeah, excellent way of putting it. And when you consider all of the other necessities (shelter, clothing, healthcare…did I say healthcare) and the same thing holds true, it’s a no brainer why progressive tax codes are what make up the majority of countries.

These right wingers will use any and all language to change that, but it’s always about the same thing, them paying less. Fair tax? Yeah, same rate for everyone sounds fair, right? They don’t give a shit about “fair”, a flat rate means they pay less. That’s ALL they care about. If they can rename the estate tax the death tax and pay less, you betcha.

And as your example so perfectly shows, a flat rate is most certainly NOT fair. At least not until we live in a country where all our necessities are free and all of our income is disposable. Perhaps I could get behind a flat tax then, I dunno.

Just for you.

And almost ALL banking and credit services cost more for the poor. Ok, I won’t argue the credit part, but making the poor pay monthly fees and per check fees and ATM fees that ends up the poor person paying several hundred dollars per year in fees while the banks GIVE these services to free for the rich.

Theres. Something. Wrong. With. That. Picture.

Aw, thanks. That’s a nice one.
(I wasn’t gonna mention the pooties…but did I mention that before the interview, I had to roll the lint remover over the back of my skirt? They are with me always…)

You got that right. Absolutely.

Well I necessarily oversimplified it of course. Otherwise I’d still be typing and the point would be lost.

I’ll give you the $250,000, say move it up to $400,000 if you will give me more tax brackets so above $1,000,000 the rate is 49% and above $5,000,000 the rate is 61% and capital gains are treated the same as earned income above a reasonable amount.

So you’re saying you don’t understand that someone with a large pile of money sitting in the bank making 1/2% interest while the bank makes 5% off of it is more likely to be treated better than the person over-drafting and ATMing and check writing and causing hours of additional paperwork for bank employees?

Theres. Something. Wrong. With. This. Picture.

You’re right.

I see your post but that’s not everybody, people lives reach across lines in life. For example my neighbor is 70 plus years old, he worked his entire life for the city. He and wife own about 25 or 30 acres of valuable land, they bought the land 50 years ago. If there is a death tax the family will lose the property because they don’t have 55% of what it’s currently worth. How is that fair for them?

A ticket for an expired meter in Santa Monica will cost you $ 181. That’s two days of income for many, many people. Equality would mean that say, Blankfein getting a ticket would have to fork over two days worth of his monthly earnings – all things being equal…

Rich enough to pay another 4% of your income ABOVE $250k.
And that’s what we’re talking about.

You’re absolutely right about the $250K and up. What I’m talking about is the general tendency of some progressives to villify people making that amount (or in the $100K – $250K range) as somehow part of the great oligarchy. Many people in that income range have much more in common with the rest of us than they do with those in even higher income levels.

Take health care for example. At $250K you can afford a good private health insurance policy. But have a catastrophic illness, exceed the lifetime or illness-based cap on your policy and see how quickly that $250K vanishes in medical payments.

In many parts of the country, $200K-$250K a year in combined family income isn’t rich, it’s middle class, it provides pretty much the equivalent of the lifestyle a lot of our “regular working stiff” parents provided for us in the 50′s – 70′s.

(teeHee)

All the democrats for extending the Bush tax cuts to the rich should be ejected from the party. And all leadership of the party should be ejected as well until it is so.

More than 100 arrested at mountaintop-mining protest:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-28-100-arrested-mountaintop-removal-white-house-slideshow

“Climate scientist James Hansen was among more than 100 people arrested on Monday at the Appalachia Rising protest against mountaintop-removal coal mining.”

Fair enough.

I’ll take the fact that you didn’t clobber me to mean you understand my meager point. I think most people that win the lottery are broke in a few years because they think they can buy what they want and keep their expenses the same. Bye bye money.

gouging the poor is criminally obscene.

I’m curious; where is that land that its worth $83,000/acre?

Estate Tax rates on wikipedia…

A – there are lots of unknowns here, but there is a very good chance that that is not true. People talk about that situation all the time, but it usually turns out that they’re wrong.

B – if that is true, then the old couple need to get themselves to an estate lawyer right now and take care of it….there are endless legal ways to avoid that by means of a will or various kinds of trusts.

C- Why isn’t it fair? Why should the kids/descendants automatically be the ones to get it? They didn’t make the clever decision to buy the land 50 yrs ago. Their parents did, and they are, or should be, getting the benefit.
There is no inherent reason why property should pass to descendants.

In fact, your assumption is pretty new in these United States. The founders, and many, many people since, even including (gasp! rich people! like Bill Gates, Sr. and Jr., Warren Buffett, etc.) felt strongly that a strong democracy meant having a policy against inherited wealth. Yeah, really! Policy! A belief that property should not ordinarily be passed down to succeeding generations.

If you want a good example or two why they were right, look at, oh, say Paris Hilton, or Steve Forbes.

So, no I don’t agree with your assumption, and I am in very good company.

good question, I got 8,000,000 hits on google for:
land at over 80000 per acre

I am sure of the cost per acre, but I know I the family don’t have the cash to keep the land if the death tax is enacted.

Yeah, but that was not the subject of the discussion.

Oh, and once again – if you make more income than 98% of the population, you are “high-income.” Better than “rich?” The median national income is around $50k. If you make 5 times the median income, You.Are.High.Income.

All the rest is irrelevant.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Bush Tax cuts did diddly squat for the people making between 100k and 500k, because the tax cuts did diddly squat for the alternative minimum tax. Those 200K-250K earners are in the penalty box with or without the extension. They only have their 85 percentile greed envy of the top 1 percent to think and talk about, as if they will ever get any crumbs from the Republicans.

Meanwhile Social Security and Medicare are up for cuts because of the larger deficit because of last 8 years of tax breaks to the rich, who instead of trickle down to the economy have brought us to the greater depression and offshoring of US income and jobs.

I understand your point but like the myth that hard work necessarily leads to wealth, not everybody who is poor is trying to live beyond their means. I’m paying MUCH more for electricity than I did when I was 18, food too, though my dietary and living situation is virtually unchanged. That’s just inflation and for the last decade or so, income has not kept up with it.

Yes, but most of those (and I got 270,000, btw) are sites saying “why would you farm if…” not real estate listings of properties valued at…

I got: About 361,000 results. for 80000 per acre and 177000 for land at 80000.

A ticket for an expired meter in Santa Monica will cost you $181.

Are you fucking serious? I live in So Cal. Remind not to visit the People’s Republic of Santa Monica again!

I didn’t say a damned thing about overdrafts. Of course there are, and should be, charges for overdrafts.

Are you really trying to say that poor people write more checks and make more ATM transactions (thus causing more “paperwork”)??? Really?? Got a link for that?

Otherwise your bullshit argument is just that, bullshit. It’s wrong for banks to do it, just like it would be wrong for a Doctor to charge you $100 for an office visit if you’re poor and only $15 if you’re rich. Oh wait, they already do that too!!

Your. Damned. Right. Theres. Something. Wrong. With. This. Picture.

The term “death tax” tells me all I need to know. Sayonara.

You’re right, in fact it’s Old Testament.

Let’s have a 40 year Jubilation. All debts forgiven, all wealth equalized.

BTW, FDLers don’t usually promote estate lawyer to find endless legal ways to avoid taxes

Well, $83,000 per acre is what it would cost (total estate valuation of between $2,500,000 and $3,000,000) for the heirs to owe 55%.

FWIW, you can usually find property tax roles that will give you a functional estimate of the appraised value and acreage through your local county tax assessor. It’s a useful tool when protesting real estate tax hikes on your property to be able to compare your property to others in your neighborhood.

You’re so, so right on the AMT.

And I’m with you on the coming Soc Sec/Medicare debacle, courtesy of the Catfood Commission.

This is why I love FDL. If you agree or disagree, it spurs people to look for facts.

Thanks FDL.

And, speaking as a former (thank gawd) bank employee – it does NOT in any way cost the bank what they charge in fees.

My trainer in how-to-deny-requests-to-waive-a-fee used to remind us, “those fees are where your bonuses come from!”

Bonus = substitute for pay raise. = also bank’s profits.

it has nothing to do with “villifying” anyone. progressive taxation is considered good tax policy among Keynseian economists. There are probably a few who dont think so but its been the standard since Teddy Roosevelt. The Bush Tax cuts were criminally irresponsible (especially if your going to enact them after starting two wars). No one but the camp who want to abolish taxes considered The Tax Rates under Clinton, which were lower than the Tax Rates under Reagan to be excessive. The most ehtical thing, and the most courageous thiung to do, is to allow all tax cuts to expire.

YES. Real incomes for low wages earners have stayed the same or decreased since 1980, wages for the highest earners have increased 10 fold. that is a matter of record

Agreed. I noticed that too and signed off.

will I believe we should leave something for my kids – I hope to leave an inheritance for my children’s children.

I hope they do consult someone, they are very nice people.

Pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? Sorta like the belief that hard work always means wealth and if you’re not rich, it’s because you are too lazy or you live beyond your means or both.

There should have been NO discussion about the Bush Tax Cuts. Let them expire.

Agreed, Hack… and this would have happened if Congress wasn’t filled with corporate prostitutes who put the Neo-Liberal economic philosophies of Whore-in Chief Obama ahead of the American people. Blue Dogs, I’m talking to you.

OT:

Riots Grip East Jerusalem
By Mel Frykberg

“A Palestinian man was killed by an Israeli settlement security guard in disputed circumstances, a Palestinian toddler asphyxiated on teargas, and dozens of Palestinians were injured by beatings, rubber-coated metal bullets and teargas inhalation.

The East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Silwan has been tense for months with clashes breaking out between protesting Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces on a regular basis.

Jerusalem municipality has demolished many Palestinian homes. The planned demolition of dozens more homes, the eviction of many Palestinian residents, and the pending eviction of hundreds more to make way for illegal Jewish settlements and a Jewish theme park has led to a time-bomb waiting to explode. ”

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52978

BTW, FDLers don’t usually promote estate lawyer to find endless legal ways to avoid taxes

Your point being, what? Estate lawyers are evil? All lawyers are evil?

Sorry, I don’t buy into that. Just pointing out facts; if you really want your kids to have some property, you can arrange it. So if the kids really think they should get that land, they can blame the parents if they lose out. It’s easily preventable.

Yes, I know, its worth a lot. We have spoken to the family about it, I just hope they have make some arrangements regarding ownership.

If this family can’t pay the taxes who gets the land?

Thank you for not questing my “money in the bank” part to the post. That was primary.

I didn’t comment on ATM’s, but you’re right. I know people that take out $20 and pay a $2.50 fee.

But then, I know people that drive past the grocery store selling Coke for $2.50 a 12 pack, to pay $1.29 for one coke at the convience store.

Must be someone elses fault.

Why? Why should you leave something for your kids?

If they have an illness or disability, then maybe “should” is right. Otherwise, you just want to. But there is no inherent reason to do so. That’s just your belief.

I happen to agree with the founders that encouraging a class of inherited wealth is not good for America.

Remember also that transference before their death may offer additional savings. I don’t think they can transfer ALL of it (IANAL!), but if they can transfer some before-hand, it may save them some of that land. If their estate is valued at more than $20,000, then they need to consult an estate planner/estate attorney BEFORE they pass on.

At any rate, the estate itself (at whatever value) is unearned income for their heirs, and should be taxed as such (gifts, etc.). I understand that it may be burdensome that the heirs have to liquidate a portion of it, but even assuming that 45% is all they get to keep, that’s 45% that they didn’t have before and didn’t earn themselves.

where is that acreage you speak off?

Usually, the state (actual state or the Feds), who liquidates it for unpaid taxes. It may also be forced into a foreclosure (aka estate sale).

Sorry, I should have added a snark tag. Nobody around here believes in Old Testament justice (or most of the Old Teatament teachings even).

I don’t know about you, but I live across economic lines in life. I have friends who still live a home and I know know why because I grew up with them. I also very successful friends. I don’t live in a box! And I think its unfair for my neighbors to lose their land to anyone or the government because of tax placed on the land at the time of their death.

my belief.

I do not doubt that you worked hard and became successful so you are in the top 2%.

I also appreciate your admission that hard work does not always lead to such success.

But I want to say that despite your experience, that the vast majority of the wealthy do not have it because they worked hard while coming from poor roots. They have it because they came from the elite and inherited it.

Sure, there are plenty of formerly poor now rich folk to parade around to make it seem like that’s how the rich get rich. But the truly wealthy don’t parade themselves around. They hide in the boardrooms and pull the strings, as for example the Koch Brothers, who inherited their vast wealth.

Bel, if you are earning through work $300,000 a year, the total increase you’d have pay in taxes, if what Obama wants to happen happens, is about $1500.

On the other hand the vastly wealthy whose capital works for them to make, say, $50,000,000 will have an increase of $500,000 due a capital gains increase of 5%.

Can’t you see your interests are still with the fellows who worked hard by you digging ditches and who are stil the working poor? You’re being asked to pay about $4.00 more per working day. Overall, this means trillions of dollars to improve our infrastructure, keep our population healthy, make sure we are not in debt to China and create a well educated population.

I dont know how you earn that amount. But if are a business owner all this will mean more demand and your business will prosper.

Bel, do a Moses. Go walk among the people you came from and see their labors and feel their heavy burdens.

even assuming that 45% is all they get to keep, that’s 45% that they didn’t have before and didn’t earn themselves.

Exactly! That’s what I was trying to say. Nothing “unfair” about it.

That ok

The goes to the heart of the Democratic Party’s problem (I could have said this goes to the “heart” of the Republican Party’s problem just as easily, but we all know that Republicans have no “heart”).

Who brought up doing something early about the Republican-scheduled end on December 31, 2010 of the budget-busting deficit-exploding Bush era tax cuts? Who made this part of the political discussion?

IOW, the Democrats could have said nothing before the November elections and the scheduled December 31, 2010 expiration date, except for them to say that they wouldn’t saddle future generations of American citizens with an even larger federal budget deficit, beyond the huge increase already created by the Bush era tax cuts. Simple. Straight-forward. Easily defensible. Easily understandable.

Let the Republicans defend the continuation of these Bush era tax cuts, that primarily benefit the wealthy at the expense of the many, while also exploding the federal budget deficit even more.

So, which idiot Democratic Party strategist raised this issue and literally made it an issue before the November elections, instead of letting Republicans shoot themselves in the foot, defending the literally indefensible?

The obvious course of action is inaction by Democrats before December 31, 2010. Let the damn Bush era tax cuts expire on time, as the Republicans established back in 2001 and 2003, then after January 1, 2011 the Democrats can reinstate the tax cuts on less than $250,000 of income. Simple. Straight-forward. And let the culture of corruption Republicans cut their own throats over defending Bush era tax cuts for the oligarch class, the ultra-wealthy, who’ve done so much damage to our country and our economy and our nation’s children.

No, it’s not primary.

Just because the bank can make money off the rich folks accounts doesn’t mean they have to gouge the poor ones. Instead of giving the service for free to the rich and gouging the poor, they could give it away to them all and reward the ones with high accounts with other measures, say interest earned on their regular checking.

Just because one set of folks earns you more money than the other, doesn’t mean you punish the other, you could just reward the ones that make you more. If you talk to anyone that’s ever worked in the banking business, this “paperwork” meme is bullshit. It’s all electronic, and the “costs” to the bank of administering an account with lots of zeros in it is almost identical to the ones with few zeros (except for when they overdraft, which I AGREED was a valid fee).

These fees are used to gouge, period. And they are wrong. Just like it’s wrong for Doctors to charge a poor person $100 for an office visit that they charge only $15 to for others. Wrong.

Your neighbors won’t be losing it.

If their kids, who did not buy it, lose it,don’t inherit it, that is a different thing.
You cannot lose what did not belong to you.

And it that does happen because the land owners don’t want to make a will, or take any steps to pass it on, then I guess that’s the outcome they want. If it isn’t what they want, then it’s their fault.

Not the fault of the estate tax.

Love you post. I just hate it when people use rich for $200k/$250. Not respecting the fact many people earning that are working very hard to take care of their own family and the families of their employees.

I’ve read a sampling of the comments above, and I’m still not convinced that the so-called “middle-class tax cuts” don’t disproportionately benefit rich people. Remember it’s not just a tax cut for certain people, it’s a tax cut on the first $200K-$250K for everybody who pays taxes. That includes the top two percent (except for some people reporting incomes of $200K-plus who pay no tax due to loopholes).

Given that the country was in great shape economically under Bill Clinton, what is the problem with letting marginal income tax rates reset to where they were in 2000? Which would almost solve the long-term deficit problem, except for Iraq and Afghanistan. But no, Dems are afraid to be accused of raising taxes even though it’s really the Republicans raising taxes — they wrote the legislation!

Shut the fuck up?!? Stick a sock in there peepants…And yeah, I was here on FDL last summer tryin’ to get the “intellectual effete” that do most of the posting to this site to get off their pansy asses and go kick some rethug asses. So just sit there and study your navel brainiack while the rethugs just give us their usual tax cuts for the rich suppository.

precisely!!! they are “the bush tax cuts for the wealthy” Bush and republicans determined when they would expire. Let them justify another 700 billion dollar tax cut in the middle of a recession while they are trying to gut Social Security. That circumstance alone probably saves social security

while the rethugs just give us their usual tax cuts for the rich suppository

Umm, did you even read this post? Or this thread?

If there is a death tax the family will lose the property because they don’t have 55% of what it’s currently worth. How is that fair for them?

Wait a second. I thought you were all about people becoming successful due to their own hard work.

Why should some get wealth because of the pure chance that their parents had more wealth than others’ parents?

As it is this family, through nothing but pure luck about who their parents were, can sell the property and get 45% of that wealth.

This is how we ended up with a vastly wealthy elite with inherited wealth. Over a few generations our meager Paris Hilton Trust Fund Tax does not stop the accumulation of inherited wealthy, much less create a society where all the well off earned it while coming from poor roots like you did.

Bel, why are you identifying with the princes of Pharoah’s palace instead of the people you came from who continue to bear the heavy burdern of making Pharoah’s bricks?

Heh. I seriously doubt that he did.

And now, it’s time to do something about fixing supper. Been lovely having this intellectual debate with most of y’all.

Yes. This is EXACTLY what should’ve happened.

And the fact that it’s NOT happening, while Democrats control all the levers of power, tells you all you need to know about these Democrats in Washington.

And it that does happen because the land owners don’t want to make a will, or take any steps to pass it on, then I guess that’s the outcome they want. If it isn’t what they want, then it’s their fault.

See, it’s all about personal responsibility after all, oh, wait, nuts, we’ve come full circle.

It’s called an estate tax. Use of the term death tax, for me, puts you in reichwing troll territory. I won’t waste my time on circular arguments with reichwing trolls.

He was here last summer. Same ol’ troll.

Okay, one last shot before I really go – you are so right, SD – and since the term “estate” has lasted through oh, eight or ten centuries of common and statute law, while the Republicans (or Frank Luntz) just invented it for purely cynical and manipulative reasons, I’m sticking with the name that’ll last.

As I understand it, allan, the estate is to discourage a hereditary aristocracy (albeit not very effective obviously) Even The founders, who were themselves defenders of their Bourgeouise class,considered that possibility one of the greatest threats to a republic AND a free market system. Im with the founders on this alan

I believe you, but here’s my results.

Google Advanced Search

WebHide optionsShow options… Results 1 – 10 of about 7,970,000 for land at over 80000.

The Dems just keep getting more and more flaky. When they adjourn with no vote on the tax cuts–either way–they are really going to get hammered.

A fine tuned, nuanced point about why they want to wait is going to go nowhere with all but 5% of the population.

Further evidence of Obama’s just plain incompetence. He raised the issue. He made it high profile. And, then, it collapsed on top of him.

I am almost feeling sorry for the guy.

The Dems should have voted one way or the other. If they really believe in only extending below $250,00, they should have voted for it!

I’ve never seen such a meltdown.

Good for you.

Sadly, I doubt I’ll ever be in a position to take advantage of aristocracy where I could take advantage.

It’s all in the realm of ideas.

Oh, I dunno.

I think you’re gonna do just fine, if you’re not already. Maybe not Bill Gates/Koch brothers fine, but you’ll do fine methinks. I hope.

You’re right, maybe not Bill Gates/Koch brothers fine.

Not “worried about inheritance tax” fine either, but on the other hand, I don’t want to go back to 1978, except for the abs and the hair.

I live on less than $14,000. Millions of us do. There is no way that I can pay for all the bombs and rockets to kill people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you take everything I have it will not pay for the trillions of dollars to bail out the banks. I’m sorry. Your beloved rich people will have to pay. Maybe you would feel better if you had compassion for all your countrymen instead of just the rich.

We need a 3rd party. A party that has traditions of the FDR LBJ legacy. This Dem party is a repub party parading as Dem party.

I am looking at the circumstances of a friend not a political position. They are not rich, my neighbor worked for the city until he was 70 years old. The land is owned by African Americans, like much of the land over the years taken though tax. If the family can’t benefit after owning the land for 50 years, who should. I suspect a developer will end up with it – going their wealth.

Don’t fret it, keep your two bucks.

Tax Year: 2010
Filing Status:
Single
Taxable Income: $ 14,000

Tax: $ 2

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

What do you do for a living?

I’m guessing that the Democrats will extend the tax cuts for the rich. I’m also guessing that the Cat Food Commission will ask for a Value Added Tax (VAT), which will raise the taxes on working Americans. Thus, the Democrats will insure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It’s called class warfare. bel9 probably loves it.

By the way. The Republicans would do pretty much the same thing. Why are y’all so afraid of Republicans?

The only people I was ever afraid of were Viet Cong with AK-47s and B-40 RPGs. Damned if I’m afraid of people who are afraid of their own shadow.

Why would you say that? I grew up in a house with income around $300 – $500 a month? I guest if I had accepted that as my place in life we would not be having this conversation.

This whole land thing is ridiculous. Parcel it up and transfer to heirs prior to death – no problem, no 55%.

This is made up bullshit.

What do you do for a living?

I’ll answer this question. I’m a licensed mental health counselor. I gross about $60,000. I share a home with my elderly mother and my adult son, who is unemployed and attending a technical school, which we pay for. My mother has an income about $27,000 combining her social security and her annuity from my late father’s career in the military, which he paid for out of his earned income and his retirement income. I have another adult son who lives on his own and provides for himself except he needs help with university tuition, which we pay for. My third adult son is 30 years old, has a college degree and works as a cook in a bakery/diner.

We have a $59,000 debt on our home, which is worth about $300,000. It’s not a mortgage but a “line of credit.” I have about $10,000 in student loads to pay back and my 30 year old son has much, much more than that. I owe $3,000 on my VISA and have about $25,000 in my 401K. I’m 55 and in poor health. My insurance covers my doctors visits and prescriptions but I have copays. My medical expenses are usually a couple of hundred dollars a month, and this is while I’m keeping my diabetes and bad back under control.

My social security isn’t much because I was enamored with libertarianism when I was young and was in the ministry in the Presbyterian Church USA and “opted out” of SS for my ministerial income, expecting I’d invest the same amount in my own IRA, which ended up being needed when my income went south in a small church that couldn’t pay me much. I also went through about five years of unemployment after I left the ministry when I came out and before I retrained to be a mental health counselor, during which I was a full time homemaker rasing my three sons. Then I spent five years retraining before I got my current job. My parents helped me then, which they could afford since my father was still alive with his full retirement pay after being an officer in the Army from WWII through the 1960s.

Right now if I can keep working until retirement age I’ll have about $1,000 per month combined from my Social Security and the Presbyterian Church USA pension. I could have up to $75,000 in my 401K since I have about ten more years to add to it and I got to $25,000 in five years, unless the market crashes and takes it all away from me. The way we have to keep borrowing on the house to finance my sons’s education, my 401K will probably be just enough to pay off that debt when my mother dies (which I hope is a long, long time from now.)

There, that’s full financial disclosure from me, if it is relevant to my postings in any way.

By the way. I feel like I’m living high on the hog compared to when I was a very poor pastor or when I depended on my parents’ charity. If I made $250,000 to $300,000 I’d pay off my debts and my sons’ debts, buy new shoes that don’t have holes in them, give more to others, take a vacation once in a while but otherwise live the same lifestyle I do now so I could save for retirement. Oh, I’d finance the rest of my sex change transition too, which isn’t covered by insurance and is well over $20,000.

Everyone who has owned land is not a smart as you. Why would dismiss something because you know what to do, as not being true? Sorry, you feel that way. I guest you couldn’t help them because you don’t believe people are that ignorant. You need to read history of this nation, land and minorities.

More bullshit. Anybody who has had an asset appreciate like that to a point that it’s in the millions, where it previously wasn’t, has already run into the issue of paying taxes on that land as it’s appreciated.

That would prompt some self-education over time; this is no surprise to the owners.

Ergo, I cry bullshit and that this is a made up example for the purpose of hectoring the thread.

What’s not true the family, the land? Do you think I know every detail of my neighbors estate planning – I did say neighbor. No, their finances are very good, he just bought a new tractor (cash). I do know the financial state of the kids and they don’t own the land and they don’t have means to kept the land.

I don’t know what the last line of your statement means, this is first time every written in a blog.

I’m sure someone else has responded up thread, but you do understand what marginal tax rates are don’t you. You pay different tax rates depending on what part of your income you are taxing. So people who make more than 250,000 will pay less on the income under that and more on the inomce over that.

A follow-up to my #160 comment:

President Obama could nip in the bud all the talk about the Bush era tax cuts, whether extending these budget-busting deficit-exploding tax cuts or not, or tweaking them somehow, by simply saying that he would veto any bill that crosses his Oval Office desk that includes any extensions of Bush era tax cuts for the oligarch class, the ultra-wealthy. No bull. No hedging.

President Obama, not up for re-election, can take the heat, including taking the heat off of all the Democrats on Capitol Hill. He’s the president. He’s the leader. He’s the decider. And he decided that there will not be any extensions of Bush era tax cuts for the nation-destroying oligarch class on his watch, those who make over $250,000 a year, especially those millionaire and billionaire “welfare queens” who U.S. taxpayers bailed out in 2008.

President Obama could do this right now, before the November elections. Flat-out state what I mentioned above, taking the heat, and Democratic candidates could then run ads in their districts based on Obama’s stance. Liberal Democratic Party candidates could stand beside President Obama, firmly, forthrightly, against the oligarch class. Blue Dog Democratic Party candidates in Red Districts, on the other hand, already proven to be arm-in-arm with the oligarch class and culture of corruption Republicans, could blame President Obama in their ads for his not bowing to the budget-busting deficit-exploding demands of the oligarch class, with these Blue Dog candidates trying to woo some right-wingers in the Red District to vote for them (instead of the wacky Tea Party Republican candidate) so the Blue Dog can win their November election.

IOW, President Obama sets the parameters, whether before the November election, in the lame-duck period afterward, or even into next year. But only his constitutional veto power, and the threat of his using it, can emphatically and unequivocably state the White House position, and President Obama’s, over either extending or not extending the budget-busting deficit-exploding Bush era tax cuts, which mainly benefited the oligarch class over all other U.S. citizens. Otherwise, it looks like President Obama is willing to (or least trying in a “bipartisanship manner to) compromise with arch-conservative culture-of-corruption nation-destroying fiscally-irresponsible Republicans again.

Enough is enough, President Obama. Make your stand. Threaten to use your veto power for the American people, and against the multi-millionaire, multi-billionaire oligarch Robber Baron class.

Prolly shouldn’t have come back by – but – look up thread and you’ll see we’ve already explained all this to bel9. His example may not be made up, but he refuses to acknowledge that it is not necessary, nor even likely, that the situation he posits will occur.

Besides that, he disagrees with some of us, and the Founding Fathers, that mostly, passing wealth by inheritance is a bad thing for democracy.

So, true or not, he keeps harping on his theme, as if no information had affected it. Now I better go away again; wasted too much time with this already.

WTF—–was Ben Nelson doing talking at the Heritage Fdn??????? Does this guy ever vote with the Dems? Or is he strictly a GOP with a D by his name? Anybody know?

Any small business that reports all of it’s income to the IRS is not for real. I have had a small business owner tell me that when he closed up for good, for health reasons, he had enough cash in a shoe box under his bed to pay off his mortgage.

I stated that most of the government budget is spent on things the rich want – and you are correct you did not say that (spend on infrastructure is one of the things the rich want – all those police and military and welfare checks/contracts to their corporations from the government.

And I am sorry, but in my world if you make more than 98% of the population, you are rich.

As to “I did say I didn’t think its good to have negative attitudes and resentment toward success.” – we agree. But I’d like the rich to stop their class warfare on the middleclass and pay in proportion to the assets they own and income they receive in excess of that needed to live. The fellow making %30,000 with wife and kids has no money after living expenses and pays little income tax, But, based on 2007 data the top 1% have 48.4 percent of non-home wealth, compared to 20 percent for the bottom 95 percent. Meanwhile in terms of total income tax – ignoring payroll taxes – in 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes – factor payroll taxes in – which are nearly the same size as FIT taxes – and that 40.4% drops into the 20′s.

The tax on the rich needs to either be doubled in the FIT OR the payroll wage cap must be removed.

The family divides the land up and puts the land in trusts – ownership is removed – this is basic how to avoid tax if you are rich stuff. No one pays the estate tax until it gets to 8 figures – I’d offer to help but I retired from helping large corporations and the rich with their taxes.

On April 2, 2009, the Senate agreed on S.AMDT.873, an amendment to S.CON.RES.13, a non-binding concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for FY 2010, which was later passed. If enacted in the FY 2010 budget, a new $5,000,000 exemption level will be created with a maximum tax rate of 35%. Otherwise we revert to a simple exclusion ofthe first million from the estate tax.

Please note that the estate tax is in lieu of a capital gains tax which is due whenever property changes hands – it is not a death tax.

Ben Nelson spoke at the Heritage Foundation in support of extending all the tax cuts.

Sure, who does not want some more money to save or spend. Right now middle class and poor class cannot even make ends meet and those extra bucks will surely help. Will Sen. Nelson cover the short-fall for maintaining our shared resources like schools etc. or after a decade when these children have a no education and become brutes( a self-evident fact) will he make sure they are taken care of for rest of their lives so that they are not a burden to the law enforcement or state.

I understand how frustrating it can be for someone who makes $40-$50K a year, or even has a combined household income of $80-$100K, to think of those that make $250K as rich

In my opinion multiple income scales probably more than 20 as we used to have till 70s is the solution to really apply the taxes in the proper way. With current software doing taxes is extremely easy and even by pen and paper having 20+ income scales does not make tax filing that difficult or different from what we are doing right now.