Obamas 250K tax line? protests make no sense?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by noob_trad3r, Sep 8, 2010.

  1. If the Majority of americans make 250K and less, so the tax cut should not effect them. So how come so many people making much less than 250K seem to protest this? You see people coming out from trailer parks who obviously make minimum wage going to these rallies by Glen beck protesting the tax cuts.

    I understand why Glenn beck is protesting since he makes in the double digit millions but I do not understand why the custodian making 6 bucks an hour leaving the trailer park going to protest the tax increase.

    Wont they actually pay less taxes?
  2. the only explaination possible is they are morons influnced by fast talking con men.
  3. Why don't you tell us how those "few" above the 250K mark are going to turn the economy around by "paying their fair share"?
  4. Please change your screen name.
  5. My question is why folks from trailer parks making 6 bucks an hour protest the tax increase? Not how the folks making 250K paying more taxes will do good.
  6. Noob, you make an excellent point.


    They came first for the Communists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.
  7. Nice try with the old saw. Except that when Bush was in office he lavished the largest income earners with the biggest tax cuts, and disproportionately so. Who was standing up for the little guy then? Certainly not the people who want the little guy to stand up for them now.


    ...Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.

    Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000...

    And this after their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years. I think it's a fascinating marvel of propaganda to be able to maneuver the very people who only got the leftovers at the dinner table to now wave the flag on behalf of those who have gorged themselves and are now awaiting their dessert between burps.
  8. The big O`s 250 magic number is really laughable if your brain can look out farther than mid term elections.

    250 gross is slightly upper middle class now. In 10 years it will be dead middle...in 20 years it will be poor.

    Maybe those protestors are more astute than are given credit for? They have seen their income become stagnant while inflation ravages what little they make...

    Its not a dem or repub thing...its a govt control thing. Debase and inflate is the routine.
  9. The 250 number isn't set in stone, nobody is saying they cant be revised few years down the line.
  10. It depends upon your point of view. If you believe that peoples' earnings belong to the government that then decides how much of it people get to keep, then you're probably in favor of high taxes. If you believe that one person getting rich causes another person to be poor, then you probably believe that taxes should be high.

    When I hear people say that tax cuts are a "giveaway to the rich," I have to laugh. Tax cuts don't "give" anything to anybody. Tax cuts allow people to keep more of the money that was theirs to begin with.

    Even when I had no money, I was never out to punish the rich or make them pay their "fair share." I don't even know what "fair share" means. Is it 50%? 90%? 99%? How much is fair?

    And please don't tell me that rich people once paid 90% tax rates in this country. It's a myth. It's true that there were "published" tax rates of 71-94% back in the 1950s-1960s, but nobody ever paid taxes at those rates. Back then, there was something called "leveraged non-recourse tax shelters." A study by the IRS in 2003 showed that the richest people in the country paid about 25% of their income in federal taxes during the 1950s-1960s. Wealthy people dramatically lowered their effective taxes rates through the use of tax shelters. The "effective tax rate" on the weathiest taxpayers was actually 25%.

    Somebody please tell me: What does "fair share" mean? I'm not interested in a philosophical answer. Give me a specific number.

    #10     Sep 8, 2010