Edwards nails it: Tax Fairness

LadyT said:
200K a year in Jersey is a lot different than 200K a year in alabama. That is not rich by any stretch of the imagination for a family of 4.
Click to expand...

well exactly. No family is going hungry on $200k a year but in some areas of the country you still aren't living a luxurious wealthy lifestyle.
 
ib1yysguy said:
99 percent of the people who hate the words "tax increase on the wealthy" are never going to be in the income bracket that will be effected by it. And if you make $200k/year, then I hope you get taxed to the hilt to help improve the social programs your party has been bleeding to death for over a generation.
Click to expand...

That's a real positive comment. Thank you.
 
"Among the proposals, Edwards would make long-term savings easier for low-income families with "Get Ahead Accounts" that would match savings up to $500 per year."

Match savings? With the money they take from other families? Sorry cypress, I hate this plan.

Edwards is off my list.
 
cawacko, do you even realize how much money your president has spent? On Iraq alone? Somebody's going to have to pay for that. And he said in 2000 that his tax cuts for the rich were affordable, and wouldn't contribute to deficits.

He was wrong. His tax cuts for the rich need to go.

The CEO of Chevron is going to be just fine, paying the same tax rate he paid under clinton, in the booming 1990s.
 
Cypress said:
cawacko, do you even realize how much money your president has spent? On Iraq alone? Somebody's going to have to pay for that. And he said in 2000 that his tax cuts for the rich were affordable, and wouldn't contribute to deficits.

He was wrong. His tax cuts for the rich need to go.

The CEO of Chevron is going to be just fine, paying the same tax rate he paid under clinton, in the booming 1990s.
Click to expand...

200K/yr household doesn't qualify as "rich"
 
Cypress said:
cawacko, do you even realize how much money your president has spent? On Iraq alone? Somebody's going to have to pay for that. And he said in 2000 that his tax cuts for the rich were affordable, and wouldn't contribute to deficits.

He was wrong. His tax cuts for the rich need to go.

The CEO of Chevron is going to be just fine, paying the same tax rate he paid under clinton, in the booming 1990s.
Click to expand...

It's not about just the rich or picking some of the highest paid peolpe in the country. It has an effect on small businesses and on the job economy. It has an effect on jobs. It is far more than a few multi-multi-millionaire paying a couple of bucks more, they are strawmen.
 
cawacko said:
It's per person but if a family has only one person working...
Click to expand...

Well, the article said "per family". Which to me means a combined income. Yes, there could only be one wage earner in the family, but if there are two, then you're getting screwed imo.
 
LadyT said:
200K/yr household doesn't qualify as "rich"
Click to expand...

No its not. But those who make $201,000, $210,00, or $250,000 will be virtually unaffected.

Those who make a salary of $500,000 or $1,000,000 would be only marginally effected.

"That means repealing tax breaks for families earning more than $200,000. He also would raise the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent — the same rate signed into law by President Reagan."'

First, normal americans, even most upper middle class americans don't have much in the way of capital gains income.

Second, Edwards is talking about raising the marginal rate, on the top income tax bracket. If the top braket is 200K (or 180k, whatever it is), then, if you make, say $220k a year, then 90% of your wage income would be completely unaffected by a marginal rate increase on the top bracket. In short, you would be virtually unaffected.

Those that would truly be only modestly affected would be the truly wealthy.
 
Cypress said:
No its not. But those who make $201,000, $210,00, or $250,000 will be virtually unaffected.

Those who make a salary of $500,000 or $1,000,000 would be only marginally effected.

"That means repealing tax breaks for families earning more than $200,000. He also would raise the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent — the same rate signed into law by President Reagan."'

First, normal americans, even most upper middle class americans don't have much in the way of capital gains income.

Second, Edwards is talking about raising the marginal rate, on the top income tax bracket. If the top braket is 200K (or 180k, whatever it is), then, if you make, say $220k a year, then 90% of your wage income would be completely unaffected by a marginal rate increase on the top bracket. In short, you would be virtually unaffected.

Those that would truly be only modestly affected would be the truly wealthy.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with this!
 
Cypress said:
No its not. But those who make $201,000, $210,00, or $250,000 will be virtually unaffected.

Those who make a salary of $500,000 or $1,000,000 would be only marginally effected.

"That means repealing tax breaks for families earning more than $200,000. He also would raise the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent — the same rate signed into law by President Reagan."'

First, normal americans, even most upper middle class americans don't have much in the way of capital gains income.

Second, Edwards is talking about raising the marginal rate, on the top income tax bracket. If the top braket is 200K (or 180k, whatever it is), then, if you make, say $220k a year, then 90% of your wage income would be completely unaffected by a marginal rate increase on the top bracket. In short, you would be virtually unaffected.

Those that would truly be only modestly affected would be the truly wealthy.
Click to expand...

"marginal" is a generic term. Do you know where I could find definitive numbers on exactly how much he's talking about? If you're making $250K a year and $50K is subjected to an increase, that would cost you approx $500 per percentage increase. I wouldn't consider an additional $2000 a year in taxes "marginal". That's a new water heater, a few credits, a vacation, property taxes, landscaping, medical deductibles, etc.
 
Edwards will have his head shove up his ass yet again. Cypress's boy is barely more sophisticated than cyress Castro is.
there goes his long shot to no shot.
Not only is $200,000 not rich, can you say bracket creep. Remember in the 60's the AMT only got the top 3% or so. Now millions are hit.
These freaking business illiterate castro types don't get it.
WE ARE NOT UNERTAXED, were overspending.:clink:
 
LadyT said:
"marginal" is a generic term. Do you know where I could find definitive numbers on exactly how much he's talking about? If you're making $250K a year and $50K is subjected to an increase, that would cost you approx $500 per percentage increase. I wouldn't consider an additional $2000 a year in taxes "marginal". That's a new water heater, a few credits, a vacation, property taxes, landscaping, medical deductibles, etc.
Click to expand...

You understand this LadyT. It does have an effect. The attempt to portray it as a tax that will only hit those in the 8 figures and above income is not accurate. And it has an effect on small businesses. They should not be punished for producing more and creating jobs that come with it.
 
Topspin said:
Edwards will have his head shove up his ass yet again. Cypress's boy is barely more sophisticated than cyress Castro is.
there goes his long shot to no shot.
Not only is $200,000 not rich, can you say bracket creep. Remember in the 60's the AMT only got the top 3% or so. Now millions are hit.
These freaking business illiterate castro types don't get it.
WE ARE NOT UNERTAXED, were overspending.:clink:
Click to expand...

The AMT is the perfect example. There were a few rich that somehow avoided paying taxes so they set up this system which now effects millions.
 
And Cypress and the retard wing of the dem party only care about Class warefare. My option gives them a bigger cause without the collasal loser of attacking the upper-middle class.
War on the "war making machine".
 
I'd be interested in hearing how the dems intend to curb spending. Particularly the war machine.
 
they aren't talking about that because they are so chickenshit they look like warhawk lite. Does anyone think we couldn't cut billions and still be able to blow up the world twice?
 
cawacko said:
The AMT is the perfect example. There were a few rich that somehow avoided paying taxes so they set up this system which now effects millions.
Click to expand...

Like it couldn't be raised with inflation. This is not that big of a deal.

Unless Gore enters, Edwards is my pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top