Why do Democrats like the Evil Rich Tax Bracket Definition?

[pornstarwannabe]

Singles making more than $200K
Couples making more than $250K.

The East and West Coast's most expensive (to live) states vote Dem. Those same salaries in virtually any of the red states result in such a higher standard of living. Seems to me that Dems would be in favor of a tax bracket that benefits them, and does not penalize them.

 

[XdOu™]

interesting..

 

[Sean Renaud]

Singles making more than $200K
Couples making more than $250K.

The East and West Coast's most expensive (to live) states vote Dem. Those same salaries in virtually any of the red states result in such a higher standard of living. Seems to me that Dems would be in favor of a tax bracket that benefits them, and does not penalize them.

Because we're not penalizing ourselves. We're helping you dumb fucks. All of our states have people with high incomes and guess what else our states have? High taxes that pay for lots of services like quality local colleges. Then we have more educated workers and we then we get high paying jobs like Silicon Valley for example and then we raise the minimum wage so our burger flippers make more money than yours and then more people come here. We want to invest in you.

The better question is why do you guys who have shit economies fight so hard against the people who are trying to lift you up out of the crushing poverty of places like Louisiana, Georgia, hell all those red states, except Texas.

And the rich are not evil, nobody is saying that buy you.

 

[mercury14]

Because we're not penalizing ourselves. We're helping you dumb fucks. All of our states have people with high incomes and guess what else our states have? High taxes that pay for lots of services like quality local colleges. Then we have more educated workers and we then we get high paying jobs like Silicon Valley for example and then we raise the minimum wage so our burger flippers make more money than yours and then more people come here. We want to invest in you.

The better question is why do you guys who have shit economies fight so hard against the people who are trying to lift you up out of the crushing poverty of places like Louisiana, Georgia, hell all those red states, except Texas.

And the rich are not evil, nobody is saying that buy you.

Texas is awash in crushing poverty. They just also have a bunch of rich folks who got that way from exploiting natural resources. But their own rich folks don't care to help their own people.

Good post though.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Because we're not penalizing ourselves. We're helping you dumb fucks. All of our states have people with high incomes and guess what else our states have? High taxes that pay for lots of services like quality local colleges.

But Dems are punishing themselves. A family of 4 in Georga (Atlanta) earning $250K is equivalent to $340K in LA, California. So the CA family gets taxed at the Evil Rich tax rate, while the Georgian family does not.

 

[CandiCame]

But Dems are punishing themselves. A family of 4 in Georga (Atlanta) earning $250K is equivalent to $340K in LA, California. So the CA family gets taxed at the Evil Rich tax rate, while the Georgian family does not.

Are you talking state or federal taxes?

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Are you talking state or federal taxes?

The Evil Rich tax bracket is at the federal level.

 

[CandiCame]

The Evil Rich tax bracket is at the federal level.

That's what I was going to say, but your OP makes it sound like they varied state to state.

What exactly are you upset about?

 

[CandiCame]

But Dems are punishing themselves. A family of 4 in Georga (Atlanta) earning $250K is equivalent to $340K in LA, California. So the CA family gets taxed at the Evil Rich tax rate, while the Georgian family does not.

Tax brackets are the same no matter the state. I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Tax brackets are the same no matter the state. I don't understand what you're saying here.

Really? Okay. On paper, it's easy for the Prez and Dems to say "no one making less than $250K will see a tax increase."

Problem? $250K in CA or NY does not go as far as in FL, GA, or TX for example. Because of the cost of living differences, tax payers in CA and NY would have to make $340K to be equivalent to $250K in the states I listed. So the "Evil Rich" tax bracket does not affect $250K earners in the red states I listed, for example.

But CA and NY vote Democrat in each Presidential election.

Get it now?

 

[CandiCame]

Really? Okay. On paper, it's easy for the Prez and Dems to say "no one making less than $250K will see a tax increase."

Problem? $250K in CA or NY does not go as far as in FL, GA, or TX for example. Because of the cost of living differences, tax payers in CA and NY would have to make $340K to be equivalent to $250K in the states I listed. So the "Evil Rich" tax bracket does not affect $250K earners in the red states I listed, for example.

But CA and NY vote Democrat in each Presidential election.

Get it now?

You think the income tax should be adjusted on a state-by-state basis? I guess is what you're getting at. I have no opinion on that one way or the other. I'm fairly certain that cost of living varies wildly within different cities in the same state, though, so I don't know that that would help anything.

*shrug*

 

[Sean Renaud]

Texas is awash in crushing poverty. They just also have a bunch of rich folks who got that way from exploiting natural resources. But their own rich folks don't care to help their own people.

Good post though.

I was only pointing out they do pull their weight when it comes to taxes. I'm sorry they have crushing poverty but their rich are sufficiently rich that the state is a net win and we (as Americans) wouldn't be winning by jettisoning them. Their philosophy perhaps but not them.

But Dems are punishing themselves. A family of 4 in Georga (Atlanta) earning $250K is equivalent to $340K in LA, California. So the CA family gets taxed at the Evil Rich tax rate, while the Georgian family does not.

We think you're worth it. The question is why don't you think you're worth it. We think that getting you to a point where you are not just self sufficient but ideally a world leader is worth our suffering a bit.

Why do you think you're so fucked up we'd be better off building our skyscrapers taller than giving you a school? Are you really too stupid to learn?

Really? Okay. On paper, it's easy for the Prez and Dems to say "no one making less than $250K will see a tax increase."

Problem? $250K in CA or NY does not go as far as in FL, GA, or TX for example. Because of the cost of living differences, tax payers in CA and NY would have to make $340K to be equivalent to $250K in the states I listed. So the "Evil Rich" tax bracket does not affect $250K earners in the red states I listed, for example.

But CA and NY vote Democrat in each Presidential election.

Get it now?

Yes, we get it. We still think investing in our futures is worth the extra "penalty" for us already having ours. We want you to get yours too. Why are you trying so hard to stay in poverty?

 

[dan_c00000]

Keep in mind that local taxes can make a difference. Texas, for example, has no state income tax so even if you make less you get to keep more. Of course paying less in taxes usually leads to massive budget problems.

Everyone also seems to forget how absurdly low taxes in the U.S. are.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Because we're not penalizing ourselves.

Then you said:

We still think investing in our futures is worth the extra "penalty" for us already having ours.

So you agree that it's a penalty. Thanks for agreeing with me.

<PSW turn the to judge>
"I got no more use for this guy!"

 

[RjThoughts]

And just how much of a raise over $250K is it? One percentage point? Two, three? What is the increase?

The Repubs were pissed when Clinton stated he was going to raise taxes, said it was going to RUIN the economy. Well, did it?

 

[jeninflorida]

And just how much of a raise over $250K is it? One percentage point? Two, three? What is the increase?

The Repubs were pissed when Clinton stated he was going to raise taxes, said it was going to RUIN the economy. Well, did it?

I think Ryan nailed it with "If we raise taxes to 100% on small business owners or those earning 250k plus, that would only provide enough income for the government to operate 80 days" (something like that)

Our Government needs to join Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers.


you can NOT give any credit to Clinton over the economy. If you remove the technology boom, well, I think we would have been in a recession. Clinton was only successful due to Jobs, Ellison, and Gates (just to name a few)

Since most will not agree with that, name 1 thing Clinton did to "improve" the economy?

the economy improved despite what Clinton did

 

[RjThoughts]

you can NOT give any credit to Clinton over the economy. If you remove the technology boom, well, I think we would have been in a recession. Clinton was only successful due to Jobs, Ellison, and Gates (just to name a few)

Since most will not agree with that, name 1 thing Clinton did to "improve" the economy?

the economy improved despite what Clinton did

The question was "Did the economy tank when taxes were raised?" It's a YES or NO answer.

 

[jeninflorida]

The question was "Did the economy tank when taxes were raised?" It's a YES or NO answer.

You are trying to compare a Rock to an Orange.

We do not have the same economic conditions. There is no technology boom other than Apple

What part of our economy is growing?

technology is down
real estate is still trying to find the bottom

 

[pornstarwannabe]

you can NOT give any credit to Clinton over the economy. If you remove the technology boom, well, I think we would have been in a recession. Clinton was only successful due to Jobs, Ellison, and Gates (just to name a few)

And that reinforces the point: cutting spending is not enough. We need to grow the economy to reduce the debt.

 

[RjThoughts]

You are trying to compare a Rock to an Orange.

We do not have the same economic conditions. There is no technology boom other than Apple

What part of our economy is growing?

technology is down
real estate is still trying to find the bottom

Yes or No, simple answer.

technology is down? Come to the Capital District of NY and say technology is down. Nanotechnology is going full guns here. There is a chip fab plant that will soon be up and running, and they're already wanting to EXPAND the factory!!

Dot Coms, yes, but don't be silly. The need for technology degrees is at an all time high!! And one party wants to dismiss it!!!!

 

[jeninflorida]

And that reinforces the point: cutting spending is not enough. We need to grow the economy to reduce the debt.

Technology was booming and people were making a ton of money. And that produced higher tax revenue.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

The need for technology degrees is at an all time high!! And one party wants to dismiss it!!!!

What party is that?

 

[RjThoughts]

What party is that?

the same that wants to cut Pell grants!!!!

 

[jeninflorida]

Yes or No, simple answer.

technology is down? Come to the Capital District of NY and say technology is down. Nanotechnology is going full guns here. There is a chip fab plant that will soon be up and running, and they're already wanting to EXPAND the factory!!

Dot Coms, yes, but don't be silly. The need for technology degrees is at an all time high!! And one party wants to dismiss it!!!!

Okay so maybe we have one sector growing in one part of NY. In the Clinton time America was booming despite what Clinton was doing

What does "one party wants to dismiss it" mean? by having people pay for their own college, fuck yes!

Higher taxes, no. those in government will just waste it.


this is not 1980 to dot com bubble busts. I'm sorry but I don't think you understand the big picture.

 

[jeninflorida]

the same that wants to cut Pell grants!!!!

yes, we MUST 86 Pell grants. apply for low interest student loans.

also 86 all funding to college and make colleges compete for students and money