lol poor people

Poor people? lol, amirite?

America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000.

Their tax hike doesn’t apply to income from investments. It doesn’t apply to any wage income in excess of $106,800 a year. It’s the payroll tax that they want to raise — to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent of your paycheck, a level established for one year in December’s budget deal at Democrats’ insistence. Unlike the capital gains tax, or the low tax rates for the rich included in the Bush tax cuts, or the carried interest tax for hedge fund operators (which is just 15 percent), the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.

The hypocrisy is so obvious here, I really don’t feel the need to add more commentary than to say these Republicans are especially disgusting.

41 Responses

  1. It is mind boggling, but expected of the immoral.

  2. But we have to PROTECT the rich! We have to do them favors, so they in turn might consider possibly creating some jobs, maybe. Or not.

    But regardless, we must not anger them. Their wrath is fearsome to behold. All hail!

  3. I don’t see any taxes getting raised, but it is important to understand that tax receipts have been in the tank the last few years exactly because the top 50% pay 100% of the taxes and the bottom 50% pay none.

    The higher up the pay scale you go, the more income is generally based on the health of the economy or the performance of a business entity. So, economy in the tank, tax collection also in the tank.

    You can’t just raise taxes on the top earners and expect to collect dramatic amounts of money for ever, raising taxes whenever you run out of cash. If they are to raise taxes they do need to raise them across the board, not all on one end or the other.

  4. The real reason tax receipts have been in the tank the last few years is actually because the Republicans lowered taxes of the more wealthy and corporations to a lower rate than it has been for 60 years.

    Tea Party clowns and Libertarians hate the average person so much that Republicans are going to vote to let the recent payroll tax reduction expire so that all working class people will pay more. That couldn’t be more regressive and repulsive than that.

  5. The “mega-rich” pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class “fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.”
    Warren Buffett on Sunday, August 14th, 2011 in a “New York Times” op-ed

  6. Bob, that’s a good link you’ve provided. I think you should read it a little more thoroughly.

    When you tax something, you get less of it. Buffet is not talking about raising income taxes in place will a) encourage loopholes and moving accounts offshore and b) discourage investment. The margins on investments can be low enough that if you ratchet up the capital gains tax slightly, it can make the investment uncompetitive to rival uses of money.

    That issue is not something your side addresses. Maybe being poor has changed my scope of what middle class is, but why do you think of the entire $70k-$140k bracket as the “middle class”

    You should also read this other true statement from the same page:

  7. I did read it. I was not advocating raising the income tax but the investment credits and loopholes which have gone bizarre that the third part of the article talks about. That is the heart of what Warren Buffet was getting at. I have no idea about what you are talking about, Michael, about the middle class tax bracket. The cost of living is very high in many places.

  8. You said the middle class pays 15%-25% in taxes (its a little less than that because all of a persons income does not go into the same bracket) but someone making $100,000 a year is in the middle of that 25% bracket.

    Warren Buffets real complaint is that the rich people in his office, who he said pay 33% or more – which means they are making a minimum of $212,300 each annually.

    So he is saying that a portion of the super rich do not make pay as high a percent as the other rich. It really has nothing to do with the working poor.

  9. No, Michael. The article said it in plain English. Spin all you want, but he said it plainly.

  10. A good article on who creates wealth and who should pay taxes and why:

  11. Um… Yeah. Great article…

  12. Bob, I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but I’m a little troubled but your constant citation of “Mike the mad biologist” as a font of economic wisdom.

    Believe it or not, I have a lot of respect for John Maynard Keynes . He was a brilliant economic scientist.

    However, you cite a neo Galbraithian. I think you should look elsewhere for your economic expertise. John Kenneth Galbraith‘s critics aren’t just people like Friedrich Hayek – harsher criticism came from Paul Krugman. You might benefit from the article “Right of the Wrong Reasons” which would allow you to keep your political views without having to cite such an awful source.

  13. Like I care what you think about whom I quote. I more often disagree with “Mike, the Mad Biologist”, but when he is correct about something then I use it.

    You know, authority works 2 ways. You shouldn’t always look up to someone as right because they are an authority but neither should you look down on everything someone says because you don’t like what they say.

    I get information from many places. Just because I quote someone who articulates something well. Ayn Rand and her political, economic and lifestyle policies and her followers are wrong. But only 99.5% of the time.

  14. You must know a lot about Rand’s ideas to make such a statement. I wonder if you could give a good summary of those ideas.

    Unless of course it’s rhetorical, than never mind, I understand its the new “Bush did it”.

  15. Bob, your behavior doesn’t reflect the facts. I was trying to politely warn you that you are following a crank. I have seen you cite Galbraiths “balance of payments” theory here before, which inspired the Dick Cheney school of economics.

    I agree with you not see a potential source as an authority figure, or to automaticly disagree with everything they said, but I do want to caution you about quoting cranks. When they are right, there are usually plenty of other sources to say the same thing.

    I personally don’t cite Ayn Rand, but if you think her followers are wrong 99.5% of the time, than you are a strange liberal indeed. I had no idea you disagreed on libertarians when they support gay marriage, want to reduce military spending, oppose corporate bailouts and corporate welfare, defend abortions rights, oppose unchecked power by the police defend freedom of speech, maintain the separation of church and state, want the US to stay out of stupid wars and promote free immigration.

  16. Nate, I do not have to prove a negative. State a positive and then I will knock it down.

    Michael, most of those are progressive liberal policies. See Ron Paul for Libertarianism in the US. It is a lot difference. I have no power here and will be offline for a while

  17. You don’t have to prove anything at all. Generally it is advisable to make an attempt, if only to preserve your credibility.

  18. I’ve only just realized what tax this is, it didn’t click for some reason before.

    Social security! Do you really mean that people should be made to contribute to their own ‘retirement’? Ridiculous, surely no one making under 106,000 a year should have to pay into their retirement. I have a good idea, why not make the ‘rich’ contribute to my retirement savings as well?!?!


  19. “Social security! Do you really mean that people should be made to contribute to their own ‘retirement’?”

    Wow, so ignorant! Unbelievable! People pay social security tax from every paycheck. It is a certain percentage up to a maximum. Wealthy people pay nothing on income over that. Money earned by investments pay nothing.

    I guess only people who have actually worked a job know that.

  20. And peoples return from SS is capped. Also paying nothing in entitles you to nothing out.

    I guess only people who have an understanding of payroll taxes understand that. Clearly you do not. Are you sure you know how social security works?

    How astute of you to recognize that military service is not a job and neither is owning a business and being one of two employees.

    Surely I’ve never paid any taxes.

  21. Typical elitist Libertsrian crap. I need to go shoeer now.

  22. What part? The facts? I’m sorry if the truth of it is inconvenient to you.

    It is good to know that “typical elitist libertarian crap” is showing you to be mis- or un-informed on a subject. I’ll remember that. I did already have my suspicions though.

    Isn’t it about time for you to unsubscribe?

  23. Point: Nate

    Social Security is a regressive tax married to a welfare program for the rich. It has always been the transfer of money from the poor to the rich. It is not a retirement account.

  24. Regressive? Eh, sure, but I don’t see a tremendous amount of wealth transfer to anyone. If anything its wealth confiscation from everyone who paid in, as the inflation indexes they use don’t account for relevant inflation.

    Probably why it’s not already insolvent.

  25. Poor people have always started working sooner – therefore putting more money into SS – and die sooner – stopping their benefits. It was sold to the public as a retirement savings system, but to defend it in court it had to be listed as a welfare system.

    I am entirely uncomfortable with taking money from a 17 year old kid who works after school to help support his family and giving that money to a retired doctor. What a disgusting system.

  26. Well I’m not a fan of ponzi schemes either, but what can you do? The fact still remains that the doctor will actually draw less than he put in if truly adjusted for inflation, just like everyone else drawing on the SS system.

    Another argument for individual retirement accounts.

  27. Yes, the case for individual retirement accounts…

    That way the plan administrator gets to take out a fee…

    Then the broker gets to take out his fee…

    Then the stock management company gets to take out their fee…

    and then because none of the above really know what they are doing the investment loses 20-30 percent….

    So when all done, the individual retirement account has half of what was put in…

    Such a good plan…..for the fee brokers.

    The above is exactly what happened to a buddy’s mother-in-law’s account after his father-in-law died. The fees from the plan administrator and an accountant and a broker are sucking it dry. The deceased set it up so that the recipients can not receive two-thirds of the inheritance until 4 years after death – this is the American investment plan in action.

    oh yeah, the accountant and the plan administrator were good buddies to the deceased before he died. Good thing they weren’t strangers or enemies.

  28. It’s working well in other countries. You should also remember that there is loss no matter what you do, the government consumes a share, they too have to employ people to administer claims and so on. You are also forgetting that nearly the entire SS trust fund is invested unwisely.

    In government bonds. That’s fine until they need to take the money out to pay claims. The government can’t afford to pay that back, so those who hope to benefit from SS after they need to start drawing down the trust are at the whims of other investors to start buying up the debt the SSA is selling.

    Boy, that sounds much more secure than having to take some small amount of responsibility for your own future. You act like its the governments responsibility to keep people from making stupid choices or not paying attention to things they should.

  29. Bob, are you really going to make the claim that social security pays more than private investment based on a single atypical anecdote? That is a poor standard of evidence.

    You are comparing a system where money from one person is directly handed over to another person to an actual investment system. I’m sure you realize government bureaucracies are known for being inefficient, so why not compare apples to apples?

  30. No, Michael, you entirely miss the point.

    Some people push for privatzing Socisl Secutity as if is some kind of cure. I gave an example of how that is not necessarily true.

    You can spin and twist yourself in knots but the facts are there. End of story.

  31. An example. You gave an example of people screwing things up for themselves. I know you don’t believe in personal responsibility, but this is even extreme for you.

    Privatizing SS looks to be a much better option than not. Perhaps offering people the choice between managing it yourself and buying into the giant mess of a program?

    What could possibly be wrong with that I wonder.

    It shocks me how many people are only pro-choice if it refers to abortion, with everything else… Brother knows best.

  32. Because, as even a low IQ person knows, those with more money will opt out and collapse the system. The reason it hasn’t worked well is due to congress not taking care of the funds. If ALL income and investments participated the fund would be fine.

  33. You don’t think that the money would have been borrowed by the federal government and still be sitting in a state of perpetual non-repayment?

  34. Government always spends every dime it can in the long term. That is at least the truth in today’s world. If it hadn’t been clinton and republicans it ever would have been balanced than. if it had been dems in charge after 2000, it would still have gone in the tank.

  35. I already addressed that

  36. oh did you? Was that when you said, “congress is not taking care of the funds”?

    What an elegant solution, just start taking care of the funds!

  37. Of course that is what should happen, Nate. Would you prefer shoving them in your mouth? I certainly have seen no indication from you on a reasonable solution, other than to wreck everything and cause anarchy.

  38. Let people handle their own money is akin to anarchy? Letting people be somewhat responsible for their futures is anarchy?

    Let me ask you this than, why should people even take home any part of their pay checks? Wouldn’t it be better, safer, further from anarchy if we had the government manage not only peoples retirements but also their day to day spending?

    I’m asking with all possible seriousness. If people can’t manage their own money than they can’t manage their own money.

  39. What is wrong with shoring up the current system and letting wealthier people do their own investing beyond that? It is currently done all the time. I have a lot put away beyond what has been taken from my paychecks.

    Your thought processes have gone bizarre. You make assumptions that are not even close to what I say. You go from A to Z. Your comments have become too weird to even read. I will no longer respond to the weirdness.

  40. Ok Bob. Whatever. I only asked a question based on what you argued, that people are generally too dumb to invest properly for retirement without getting hosed.

    I guess you forgot.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: