Posted on 11/14/2012 7:07:18 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It’s no surprise that working couples in big cities are struggling to raise children while paying off mortgages and student debt. What is surprising is that they’re lumped in with the so-called “wealthy” if they jointly earn $250,000 a year.
The "fiscal cliff" has added a new sense of urgency to the tax hikes that President Obama plans to impose on America’s wealthiest citizens. Obama starts the meter at $250,000, and it goes up from there. The tax increases on high-income earners would deliver about $42 billion in 2013. They would create a small 0.1 percent drag on GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but their real cost might be much steeper.
Those tax increases aren’t the only ones that would kick in next year. In California, new tax propositions will create four new brackets for earners making $250,000 or more. Those taxpayers will see their state income taxes jump between 10.6 percent and 32.2 percent, depending on their bracket. Other states in fiscal straits could follow suit, and Republicans, among others, worry that soaking the rich could weigh on consumer spending and leave the entire economy under water.
Discretionary consumer spending is the engine that drives the U.S. economy. And high-income earners drive it more than middle- and low-income earners. Gallup’s daily tracking of consumer spending showed a dip last month among upper-income consumers — an average of $116 per day, down from $126 in September. If that dip continues into the holiday buying season, the economy could suffer a setback.
I'm Wealthy? That's Rich
By most measures, a $250,000 household income is substantial. It is five times the national average, and just 2.9 percent of couples earn that much or more. “For the average person in this country, a $250,000 household income is an unattainably high
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
RE: Al Gore famously (and the members of the Obama administration since) have argued that if you earn $250,000 you ARE a millionaire.
With apologies to the late Patrick Moynihan, I call this defining millionaire down. With our debt and deficit, pretty soon, everyone will be considered rich enough to tax in their eyes ( well maybe not the 47%, but then, who’s to say that number won’t increase past 50% real soon?)
A 0.1 drag on the GDP, what a joke. The over 250k group does most of the consumer spending, investing, and pretty much all of the hiring. This is demoralizing for the productive class and many will slow down or go Galt. Just wait when the “rich” see how much they are losing in taxes next year. Do you think that they will work harder if that money goes down a black hole.
RE: Al Gore famously (and the members of the Obama administration since) have argued that if you earn $250,000 you ARE a millionaire.
With apologies to the late Patrick Moynihan, I call this defining millionaire down. With our debt and deficit, pretty soon, everyone will be considered rich enough to tax in their eyes ( well maybe not the 47%, but then, who’s to say that number won’t increase past 50% real soon?)
I agree. Nobody is stating whether they are talking about gross, adjusted or taxable income. In some cases, it is a significant difference.
But is everyone missing the fact there appears to be a marriage penalty involved? If the individual level is $200,000, then shouldn’t the joint level be $400,000? Or in reverse, shouldn’t the individual level be $125,000 if the joint level is $250,000? If that is true, why would singles want to get married?
I thought I would throw that out there.
$250,000 is just a random number. It rolls smoothly off the tongue of the Community Organizer and his friends.
Anyone remember the episode of “TAXI” where the character Jim accidentally burns down Danny DeVito’s characters Apartment?
Jim’s Father, a Lawyer, agrees to pay for the damage and los. Danny DeVito is pacing the floor trying to come up with a number. He is trying desperately to figure out a number big enough to enrich himslf but small enough to not scare away Jim’s Father.
Finally after five minutes of arguing to himself he says give me $25,000 or something like that. After Jim hangs up the phone, DeVito says well? Jim says OK, he will give you the money. DeVito is really proud of himself until Jim says, he was worried you would want $100,000. DeVito collapses on the floor.
The Liberals have set a line in the sand where $250,000 is the new “rich”, and everyone in power has bought into it.
Just like the Minimum Wage or CAFE standards, the Sheeple eat it up. We are all Comrades now.
My Father told me people live with what they earn. Well, not anymore but you get the picture. When I was young I would think to myself, if only I made a certain amount of money I would have it made. Well, I worked hard and made more than that imaginary amount, but I never had it made.
Raising taxes on one segment of the population based on income is bigotry.”””
It certainly is discrimination.
i live in california. I make about 70k a year, but i don’t work, i get a gov pension and own 5 house and have no mortgage on any of them.
I feel rich.
If it’s more than the takers make, then it’s rich.
And don’t spend too long dwelling on the 250k figure. It will come down just as soon as it’s learned the revenue doesn’t cover the problem.
But, then, the upside is that, pretty soon, we’ll all be rich...by definition.
The 47% will be hit with backdoor taxes (”watch yore cornhole buddy!”) through higher cigarette taxes, fat taxes, sugar taxes, corn taxes, health insurance taxes...
An old thread with a 1939 conservative booklet (”The Revolution Was”) about FDR and the New Deal. It’s all happening again, almost down to the same wording that Obama uses. It is a long booklet, but here is an excerpt as “obscene profits”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts
..... “We cannot go back to the old order,” said the President [FDR]. And this was a very hateful counter symbol, because the old order, never really defined, did in fact associate in the popular mind with the worst debacle in the history of capitalism [the Crash of ‘29].....
Large profit as such becomes therefore a symbol of social injury, merely because it is large; moreover, it is asserted that large profit had long been so regarded by the government and penalized for that reason.
Of all the counter symbols this was the one most damaging to the capitalistic system. Indeed, if it were accepted, it would be fatal, because CAPITALISM IS A PROFIT AND LOSS SYSTEM and if profits, even very large profits, are socially wrong, there is nothing more to be said for it [capitalism].
But it was a false symbol, and false for these three reasons, namely: first, there is no measure of large profit; second, large profits are of many kinds and to say simply that large profits are “of course made at the expense of the neighbors” is either nonsense or propaganda, as you like; and; in the third place, the history is wrong....
So, what the New Deal really intended to do, what it meant to do within the Constitution if possible, with the collaboration of Congress if Congress did not fail, but with war powers if necessary, was to REORGANIZE AND CONTROL THE WHOLE ECONOMIC AND THEREFORE THE WHOLE SOCIAL NETWORK OF THE COUNTRY.
And therein lay the meaning — the only consistent meaning — of a series of acts touching money, banking and credit which, debated as monetary policy, made no sense whatever.
The move is for exemptions for the NYers and other DNC enclaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.