About that $250,000 threshhold on the taxes ......

[hedgehog]

If I had a household income of $250,000 for a single year, I would wipe out my mortgage, student loans for 4 kids (I've already cleared the loans for the first two), eliminate my credit card debt, put on a new roof and replace my 40 year old kitchen.

[Schema Thing]

1. I would buy insurance, put on a new roof, fix that Delorean sitting on blocks, and hire

a killer to travel back in time and take out Ayn Rand.

[patrice]

2. Me too. & Also: Is $250K in the SAME 30+% tax bracket as the sky-is-NOT-the-limit income$$$$$$$?

That doesn't seem right to me. What do you think about raising the bottom of that bracket? Wouldn't those folks be less dependent upon those above them, than the rest of them in that bracket are, so they'd be more likely to be interested in a little *N*E*W* entrepreneurship if they were taxed more like the Middle-Class?

[DJ13]

5. No, up to $250k is at the lower rate

Only income above $250k is taxed at the top rate.

[patrice]

7. K. I guess my point still stands as to why incomes under some cut-off point, $500K? $700K?, are

treated as anything like incomes that become qualitatively different at some point above that. The top is soooooooooooooooooooooooooo high that the bottom should not be tooooooo low. They aren't the same economic entities.

If we assume that there is some point in there at which an income achieves critical mass, and thus warps the tax structure and, hence, the economy, shouldn't we try to identify what that point is? at what point does the income, along with others at the same level in that bracket, become a black hole, as compared to those under that point, which because of their lesser economic inertia, less "mass", their qualitative difference from those above them, should not be treated the same as those above them who have shifted over to the dark-side.

Just thinking about another form of divide-and-conquer here, something that could be seed money for AMERICAN entrepreneurship, as opposed to the foreign money that gets involved in those astronomically high incomes.

[hedgehog]

15. Excellent points well expressed!

[patrice]

17. Thanks! Rmoney inspired me to remember something I think the Progressive Caucus suggested. nt

[patrice]

8. I think the Progressive Caucus floated something like this as part of a package during the budget

standoff of 2010, when a whole bunch of other stuff was going on too and the result turned out to be extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. Anyway I think the Progressive Caucus floated the idea in only a couple of places and it got totally obliterated in that shit storm over raising the deficit ceiling.

[gregoire]

9. Great point, they pay 0%...

on a lot of their income. That is unfair and stealing. For example, if one of those crooks had a taxable income of $251k for a year, they would only pay the top rate on $1k. I don't understand why the Party accepts that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. So would just about ...

all Americans.

My wife and I frequently fantasize about receiving a $250K windfall ... it would be life-changing, as it would be the first time ... in our adult lives that we would be debt free.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. I would gladly pay whatever taxes I might have to pay on that sort of income

That would represent a HUGE increase in our standard of living!

[flpoljunkie]

10. It's taxable income, too--not adjusted gross income. The 4.6% more is only on income over $250K.

The Clinton era tax rates exactly--when we created over 22 million new jobs.

Time to can the 'job creator' lies!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. If the tax cuts worked like they said they would

the economy would be blasting along like gangbusters and people wouldn't be in such (generally) dire shape at the moment.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Indeed! It's good to see Dems pointing this out, as well. Bush tax cuts did not create jobs.

[madinmaryland]

13. That's what I have been saying. We have been cutting taxes for thirty years, and I have never seen

a single tax cut work, unless of course you are part of the ONE PERCENTER's.

[IndyJones]

14. I want to live where you live then. It would certainly make things more

financially comfortable, but we couldn't pay off our mortgage. I wish!

[hedgehog]

16. It's a very modest mortgage, and it's taken us almost

30 years to pay it off! I hope we'll be done next year. If we hadn't started out at 12% rate, I think we'd have paid it off a lot sooner and picked up fewer other debts along the way. I think we refinanced 3 times as rate dropped.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. Maybe you are more prudent and wise than the "average" 250k earner

I'd guess a bunch of 250k income people put themselves in the same mortgage/loan/credit hole as the rest of us. They just have more expensive houses to pay for, and more expensive toys and tuition loans.

I'd like to think I'd make the same decisions as you, and not just upgrade my debt to new levels.

[Igel]

22. Yup.

They want you to buy the best you can.

In fact, there's a lot of pressure to fit in with peers, meaning live in the same kind of neighborhood. Have $100k income and live in an area with median household income of $45k? You're slumming and should move.

In-laws always drove junkers. In 50 years they never bought a new car, or one with less than 5 years on it. They dressed the same way: They liked 2nd hand shops. They had a few million in their IRAs and stock funds and their investment folk looked at them like they were insane. "It gets me where I need to go. And that's one reason I have this much for you to make money off of." The investment folk shut up.

[demwing]

19. Exactly, just 1 year at that income solves all of my financial problems except retirement

and 3 years would set me up for that...

[HopeHoops]

20. Yeah, but what is sadly missing from reports is that the first $250K works for EVERYONE!

Even rMoney would get a tax break on that "chump change" portion of his income.

[phleshdef]

21. Yea, give me 5 years with that kind of salary and I'd be self sufficient and never want...

...for much of anything ever again. The first year would be spent paying everything off and relieving myself of debt. The next 4 years would be spent working on a retirement nest egg and getting my home and property in such a condition that I need to rely on outside energy sources and outside food sources as little as possible.