Tea Parties

[The Chief]

Oh, yes. Now I see the problem.

The Factor - News? No more/no less so than The View. Both are biased commentary.

Hanitty - News? No more/no less than Oprah. Biased commentary.

Cramer - Business? Negatory, simply entertainment.

Greta? Geraldo? - Either/both have shown they will ride any horse in any direction as long is the $$ is right. First they were far left, now far right commentary.

Moral? Be offended when you are told what you can think, what you can say.

 

[picklesuit]

Greta? Geraldo? - Either/both have shown they will ride any horse in any direction as long is the $$ is right. First they were far left, now far right commentary.
.

Greta and Horse in the same sentence...awesome...

 

[eddie]

It is not the "wealthy." You bust your butt to make $250,000 or more a year, you aren't wealthy. You are just upper-middle class. You start making $5 million or more a year with a net worth $10 million and up and you're wealthy.

250K a year is wealthy. It's not "enough," but at the end of the day, it's "wealthy."

 

[MasterBates]

I made $110K last year.. I get taxed up the ass. And yes, they consider me "wealthy" even though it's well known where the hell I live.

 

[PropStop]

@ 200 in nuw .... That's a lot for joke harbor; some in the crowd were heard to whisper that it rivaled "holland happenings" ....

(* nuw inside joke *)

not possible!

 

[wink]

250K a year is wealthy. It's not "enough," but at the end of the day, it's "wealthy."

A lot of families in San Fransisco, NYC, HI, etc would disagree with you. No doubt, if you pull down 250K you are doing well, but wealthy, that really depends on the circumstances. You are a smart guy, do the math. If you make 250K you probably are not in a situation where you get free medical. So factor in your family's medical insurance, disability insurance, and the retirement you have to fund yourself. Consider the cost of living in many big cities in the US, the local taxes that are levied in most those high dollar cities, the higher cost of energy in most those places, and there isn't enough left over to call those folks wealthy by my definition. So why should the guy earning 250K get soaked because of what he earns when at the end of the day he is living no better then a guy earning $120K in another part of the country? If this is going to be a class struggle, and that is where it is going, lets actually compare classes where it matters, lifestyle and comfort.

 

[Flash]

A lot of families in San Fransisco, NYC, HI, etc would disagree with you. No doubt, if you pull down 250K you are doing well, but wealthy, that really depends on the circumstances. You are a smart guy, do the math. If you make 250K you probably are not in a situation where you get free medical. So factor in your family's medical insurance, disability insurance, and the retirement you have to fund yourself. Consider the cost of living in many big cities in the US, the local taxes that are levied in most those high dollar cities, the higher cost of energy in most those places, and there isn't enough left over to call those folks wealthy by my definition. So why should the guy earning 250K get soaked because of what he earns when at the end of the day he is living no better then a guy earning $120K in another part of the country? If this is going to be a class struggle, and that is where it is going, lets actually compare classes where it matters, lifestyle and comfort.

As someone who lives in the second richest county in the country, and where the median household income is over $100k, I feel that pain. But at the same time it is my choice to live here, just like those who live in other high-cost areas like NYC or San Francisco. I could be living a lot better if I lived elsewhere, even with the loss in pay, but I enjoy where I live and what I do for a living so I am willing to give a bit to get a bit.

While I do pay higher taxes than I have in the past, from property to state income taxes, I get a lot more for my money too. Far better schools, much better roads and other services that have been sorely lacking where I have lived before. Even factoring in all the expenses that I did not have before, like medical insurance and retirement contributions, I still live very comfortably on an income that is a lot less than $250k.

So while some of the people who make $250k may not be wealthy by your definition, they are by most. While people who make that much do pay a lot in taxes, with all of the tax breaks that are available many people who make that much don't pay the full tax rate anyways.

 

[Bevo16]

A lot of families in San Fransisco, NYC, HI, etc would disagree with you. No doubt, if you pull down 250K you are doing well, but wealthy, that really depends on the circumstances. You are a smart guy, do the math. If you make 250K you probably are not in a situation where you get free medical. So factor in your family's medical insurance, disability insurance, and the retirement you have to fund yourself. Consider the cost of living in many big cities in the US, the local taxes that are levied in most those high dollar cities, the higher cost of energy in most those places, and there isn't enough left over to call those folks wealthy by my definition. So why should the guy earning 250K get soaked because of what he earns when at the end of the day he is living no better then a guy earning $120K in another part of the country? If this is going to be a class struggle, and that is where it is going, lets actually compare classes where it matters, lifestyle and comfort.

Bingo.

A guy making $250K in San Fran is going to pay $70,000 a year in Federal Income Tax, $21,000 in CA State income tax, and depending on the property you own, Tens of thousands in property taxes. The home that costs $350K in Tennessee is going to run 3.5 Million on the left coast. Groceries cost twice as much. Gas is 35% more expensive.

You are not going to miss any meals on $250K out there, but you are not going to be living any better than I am on a LT's salary in Tennessee.

 

[villanelle]

Bingo.

A guy making $250K in San Fran is going to pay $70,000 a year in Federal Income Tax, $21,000 in CA State income tax, and depending on the property you own, Tens of thousands in property taxes. The home that costs $350K in Tennessee is going to run 3.5 Million on the left coast. Groceries cost twice as much. Gas is 35% more expensive.

You are not going to miss any meals on $250K out there, but you are not going to be living any better than I am on a LT's salary in Tennessee.

I don't really disagree with this.

Except as Flash points out, where you live is a choice for 95% of the population. So if you don't want to live in a place where $250k is only very middle middle class, pack up and move to Tennesee, where you will only get $175k, but it will buy you twice as much lifestyle as $250k did in San Fran.

I don't see it as much different than deciding to buy a giant house and a yacht and a vacation house. When you make those choices, you don't have a lot left for hookers and blow, but that isn't because you aren't welathy. Similarly, if you chose to spend your money on living in San Francisco, you also don't have a lot left for extras, but it isn't because your salary doesn't make you wealthy; it's because after paying for your lifestyle choices, you don't have a lot left.

I would consider living in San Diego and being able to afford X lifestyle to be very much better than living in Tennessee and afford that same X. Not so for everyone, but nonetheless, those who live here by choice do so almost always because they do think it is better. So paying a premium for today's 90 degree weather and yesterday's trip to the beach doesn't really mean you deserve a tax break any more than paying for an expensive vacation, summer home, private school or private jet means you deserve one.

 

[HercDriver]

Oh, yes. Now I see the problem.

The Factor - News? No more/no less so than The View. Both are biased commentary.

Hanitty - News? No more/no less than Oprah. Biased commentary.

Cramer - Business? Negatory, simply entertainment.

Greta? Geraldo? - Either/both have shown they will ride any horse in any direction as long is the $$ is right. First they were far left, now far right commentary.

Moral? Be offended when you are told what you can think, what you can say.

So it is only the anchors that makes it count? It was heavily promoted; they aired 107 ads of their own coverage. America's Newsroom website had links to upcoming tea party protests. Fox Biz News Anchor Cody Willard stated "I'm on your side. I'm trying to take down the Fed." And he asked "Guys, when are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating this country?" And the "Fair and Balanced" Anchor John Gibson stated during his coverage of an event "Hopefully millions of people" would participate in the protests. And don't get me started on Glenn Beck headlining (I mean "covering") the secessionists at the Alamo.

This sign says it nicely:

"tea baggers"? Nice crude/insulting sexual reference. Way to contribute to the thread. -1.

Really? Maybe you can tell me where to send in to get reimbursed for my mileage?? Surely you can point to an example where Fox or these "corporate lobbyists" were paying for busing of protesters in like some kinds of conservative mirror of ACORN or moveon.org???

Really weak post Herc.

Do you know what a lobbyist is? Do you know what grassroots actually means? How about the term "corporate"?

The Lobbying group FreedomWorks sponsored the Tea Parties heavily (check their website...they crow about it on this page). They are headed by former Congressman and corporate lobbyist Dick Armey. FreedomWorks is funded by the Koch, Scaife, Bradley, Olin and others, including Exxon Mobil. Being heavily funded by corporations (and sponsored by Fox) takes away the definition of "grassroots", which you may not understand.
From wikipedia:

A grassroots movement (often referenced in the context of a political movement) is one driven by the politics of a community. The term implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it is natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures.

Natural and spontaneous. Hmmmm.

So perhaps you can file your travel claim with FreedomWorks... check out that link above and you may have your mileage paid for.

You don't have to thank me if you get a check.

(Oh, and sorry 'bout bruising your delicate sensibilites with the "tea bagging" crack. I can feel your anguish over the intertubes...)

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

I don't really disagree with this.

Except as Flash points out, where you live is a choice for 95% of the population. So if you don't want to live in a place where $250k is only very middle middle class, pack up and move to Tennesee, where you will only get $175k, but it will buy you twice as much lifestyle as $250k did in San Fran.

I don't see it as much different than deciding to buy a giant housed and a yacht and a vacation house. When you make those choices, you don't have a lot left for hookers and blow, but that isnt' because you aren't welathy. Similarly, if you chose to spend your money on living in San Francisco, you also don't have a lot left for extras, but it isn't because your salary doesn't make you wealthy; it's because after paying for your lifestyle choices, you don't have a lot left.

I would consider living in San Diego and being able to afford X lifestyle to be very much better than living in Tennessee and afford that same X. Not so for everyone, but nonetheless, those who live here by choice do so almost always because they do think it is better. So paying a premium for today's 90 degree weather and yesterday's trip to the beach doesn't really mean you deserve a tax break any more than paying for an expensive vacation, summer home, private school or private jet means you deserve one.

I think you're oversimplifying it way too much.

Some people have specific jobs that require them to live in or near major cities. Say I'm an mid-level executive for Apple. I'm making 250K a year in SF. I don't really have the option of going to live in TN and make 175K a year because my job is only in SF.

Jobs determine where you live. Sure you can choose to find another job. But job hopping is more damaging to wealth especially if you're taking paycuts.

 

[mmx1]

Taking a step back, are we seriously drifting to the point of arguing whether taxes should scale to the cost of living? $250k is 250k, and those higher local taxes do generally coincide with better municipal services (and if not, then move to a different county, at least!)

And as a native New Yorker, I find the idea that 250k is only "middle" class to be ridiculous. You won't be living on Park Avenue but I wonder how all those graduate students paying their own way through school (or on $15-$20k stipends), or school teachers, or cops and firefighters in the city manage if $250k is only "middle class". You may not be the top dog, but you're sharing a city with Donald Trump. This is starting to sound like that article in the New York Times a while back that talked about how millionaire bankers on Long Island were feeling the pinch of the economy now that they couldn't afford the lifestyle they felt they were "expected" to have. Boo hoo.

And somehow, I have a hard time sympathizing with an Apple executive "forced" to live in San Fran (there are suburbs, you know) when I'm living in Milton on orders. At least it's not Meridian, or Enid (as I look at the "this place sucks" thread just up the page).

 

[wink]

Not wealthy, mad!

As someone who lives in the second richest county in the country, and where the median household income is over $100k, I feel that pain. But at the same time it is my choice to live here, just like those who live in other high-cost areas like NYC or San Francisco. I could be living a lot better if I lived elsewhere, even with the loss in pay, but I enjoy where I live and what I do for a living so I am willing to give a bit to get a bit.

We all have a choice to one degree or another. I happen to have a job that allows me great latitude, so I live 300 miles from my 'work' in a place with far lower costs in every category. But why punish someone for taking that high tech job in the silicon valley where he needs greater income to live well? The people in jobs like that are usually making the rest of our lives better and enriching the country. Your middle manager at Google can leave his job for Houston, but his value to our economy will likely decrease.

While I do pay higher taxes than I have in the past, from property to state income taxes, I get a lot more for my money too. Far better schools, much better roads and other services that have been sorely lacking where I have lived before. Even factoring in all the expenses that I did not have before, like medical insurance and retirement contributions, I still live very comfortably on an income that is a lot less than $250k.

Then you are lucky. There is no correlation between tax rate and quality of services. Just ask the folks anywhere in CA or in NYC. See if they think they are getting value for their taxes. I live in a fairly low tax area. Far lower then yours. My kids go to a public high school that is one of the top ten public HS in the entire country. They are in the top 25 of ALL HS in the nation. Our Fire Dept has won more awards for innovation, safety and operations then any other. My city and county have been voted best run governments by several organizations.

So while some of the people who make $250k may not be wealthy by your definition, they are by most.

My question; is the guy earning 250K living in Marin Co. with two kids, paying for all his own insurance and a huge state tax burden more wealthy then a guy earning 120K in Ft. Worth married with two kids and company paid benefits, a boat, and RV?

While people who make that much do pay a lot in taxes, with all of the tax breaks that are available many people who make that much don't pay the full tax rate anyways.

Really, I didn't know you were a CPA. While I am not, I can only say that with every year my family makes more money I pay more taxes, ALL the taxes, no matter how hard I try to find deductions. Don't forget, most your deductions are tied to your income. I wish I had a dollar for all the worksheets I have prepared to see if I get a deduction only to be told, "Nope, thanks for playing. Leave your check in the mail box.' I'd have to have open heart surgery to come close to being able to deduct any medical expenses.

How about we get away from all the talk about who is wealthy and just agree it is a good thing we should all strive for? It is good for our families and good for the country if we all do better. And why can't we agree that if you are making money and using public services, then you should pay income taxes. What is unfair about that? I will even concede a mild progressivism in the tax code. But I am tired of pulling the cart for 40% of Americans that pay no taxes. Only about 12% of Americans fall below the poverty line. So that means that 70% of those that pay no taxes must have some income, certainly use Federal government services, but do not pay for them. To make matters worse, those people get a say in what my taxes are spent on and what my take rate is. Don't tell me that 'wealthy" people don't pay all their taxes for whatever reason, when millions of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all by government design. This, while other Americans that earned their dubious spot in the top tax bracket invested in education, lawfulness, hard work, long hours, and delayed gratification. If you earn an income, you pay your share, and no one's share is zero! My share certainly isn't what I pay now, because I have to pay for the 40% that aren't paying anything!

 

[wink]

Taking a step back, are we seriously drifting to the point of arguing whether taxes should scale to the cost of living?

No, of course not, just the inequity, and ridiculousness of defining who is wealthy and who isn't for the purposes of tax policy. How can you say Mr. Smith pays X amount because he 'has enough' and Mr Jones pays Y because he 'doesn't have enough', or needs more, without some sort of base line. It is the setting of the baseline that is grossly unfair. The use of marginal tax rates is counter productive, and American. Our system is beyond sanity. It is unfair by any definition and more often then not doesn't even yield the social or economic results it is designed to manipulate.

 

[m26]

If you are using a progressive tax scheme in order to collect more revenue from those that have more disposable income, it hardly makes sense to charge someone making $250k in middle-of-nowhere, AL the same rate you charge someone making the same amount in Manhattan.