Anybody, who's taxable income, is greater than $200,000 a year is rich.

[David Zephyr]

It doesn't matter if you live in pricey San Francisco or Manhattan, if you are a single person and you earn over $200K a year after deductions, then, by God, you are rich.

And, yes, you should pay a little extra in taxes.

Obama actually did take the Bush tax cut away from them.

I really didn't think he would do it. I thought he'd cave. He didn't.

Now, let the god-damned Republicans explain to working class Americans and the poor that $200K for a single person or $250K for a married couple in annual income is not rich. Let the Republicans make that case to the American People. And may they go down in flames doing so.

Kudos to our President!

And while I'm at it: I like his Supreme Court picks, too.

[bemildred]

1. Well, it depends.

However I can state that whenever I made over $90K or so I started having trouble spending it all and wound up with growing savings accounts. But my tastes are simple and I don't like attention, so I don't buy status symbols.

In general I agree, though, there is nothing more pathetic than someone that makes a couple hundred $K and doesn't know how they will make ends meet.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. You should update you title to state $200K after deductions

I read it as $200K gross...major difference

[David Zephyr]

3. That's why I wrote "taxable" instead of just income.

Still, ProgressiveProfessor, you make the arching point, which is one of the reasons the rich are able to bamboozle people. As you point out, it is "after deductions" which is what I was also trying to point out by using the adjective "taxable". We are saying the same thing and yet, I fear and believe that most Americans don't get it that this means "after deductions" or that which is actually taxable, which means that the $200K would require an even higher annual gross.

It also just makes my teeth grind when you hear the media (nevermind Fox) reporting that Obama is eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts or that he's going to be raising taxes on everyone. It's just lies and those on MSNBC, Bloomberg and Fox Business News and the Wall Street Journal who continue to repeat the lie are doing so intentionally.

Americans, if they are told that someone who earns $200K after deductions, will have to now pay a little more in taxes will be just fine with this.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Americans tend to think in terms of gross income, specifically W-2 income

The tax system is so complex it is literally beyond the knowledge of those in charge of making changes. It needs dramatic simplification. Not the Forbes Fair Tax nonsense, but something much simpler and fairer that what we have today. Every well meant deduction is actually a loophole. We need to stop with the patches, straighten it out, and then quit trying to control people with it.

[unblock]

18. i'm actually a bg fan of responsible tax incentives aka "loopholes"

the rub is that congress is so overly in the grip of lobbyists that so many tax incentives are really just gifts to people and corporations who are already doing what congress is "trying to encourage" with its tax incentives. but that's part of a larger corruption issue that needs solving independently of the tax structure.

assuming a less corrupt congress, they could give deductions and credits for all sorts of good things in order to steer the economy in the right direction. the boom decades of the 50's and 60's were filled with this sort of thing. eventually reagan's tax reforms got rid of much of this, which simplified things and reduced noncompliance, but it also eliminated one of congress's weapons in fighting for the economy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Social engineering via taxes has clearly gone too far

There is an entire industry devoted to taking the latest changes and ruling and finding ways to continue to legitimately avoid taxes.

[unblock]

33. it's a good idea, you just need to clean the slate periodically

maybe it wasn't a such a bad idea by the time reagan did it, there were some silly loopholes in the '70s; but permanently saying no to the entire concept is at least as bad as doing it poorly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. This is a place to err on the side of not doing it

I have a low opinion of pols. The higher they get and the longer in office, the lower my trust in them goes. Its probably an age thing, and is generic, not specific to any one politician.

We are in the mess we are because pols can not control themselves or their self interest. That drives my position of simplify and let it be. While not a flat tax supporter, a simpler and stable tax strategy is a basic requirement for us to regain confidence in our economy.

[David Zephyr]

23. +1

I agree.

[Spyderama]

7. TXI

Taxable Income, or TXI, is an official IRS term. Look at your Form 1040. The bottom line of Page 1 is your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). It is called that because a few deductible items are located in the lower section of Page 1. Turn the page and copy your AGI to the top line. Now deduct from that your exemptions and your Standard Deduction or Schedule A and you have a MUCH lower figure. Most homeowners and elderly have huge Schedule A's, knocking down that TXI figure considerably from the AGI one.

<http://palinbabygate.blogspot.com/>

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Well I understand that...but most people think in terms of gross or W-2 income

And there are any number of way to keep $$$ out of the AGI if you have a good accountant and a sizable asset base.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Then you have no idea what rich is.

There are 15,000 families (approximately) in this country with annual income averaging 35,000,000/year. They are the people who run this republic as their Wealth Protection Agency. And income is only a minor part of the story, wealth accumulation is the main story.

The genius of the repugnicant reaganization of income taxes was to collapse the tax brackets on people in the Bill Gates/Warren Buffet class down to the same bracket as skilled professionals. Doctor and Plumbers are paying the same rate as the Koch brothers. Then they sick us on each other and we fight while they build castles to keep their loot safe.

[spooky3]

14. a family that nets $250K, with average wealth, in Manhattan, DC, etc. has nothing in common with

people with annual incomes averaging $35 million, or even one tenth of that. People who think otherwise need to familiarize themselves with online calculators that show what a certain income in one city equates to in another city. It's only basic common sense and fairness to adjust incomes for the cost of living if the objective is that people with similar incomes should pay similar levels of income tax. If a house that costs $100K in Shelbyville costs $800K in Boston, then two families making $200K per year are in completely different situations.

It's grossly unfair to lump people together with those who make 100+ times what they make. Their lives are totally different, just as someone who makes $10K per year has nothing in common with those who make $1 million per year.

[Frank Booth]

19. So, what?

A family that nets $250k can live comfortably in any place in the US, and if they're unable to, then they've got a spending problem.

Over the past ten years I've lived in San Francisco, Manhattan, and Los Angeles. My SO and I have never come close to $250k in income, and (not counting the times we've been unemployed) we've always managed to live fairly comfortably.

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Your first sentence makes me laugh. Make $250k "in any place" in the US. I dare ya.

Or better yet, I dare you to try. What? Can't make $250k in Tucumcari? How about Locust Grove? Tahlequah? Can't make $250k in Earp?

[Hannah Bell]

29. Median family income in manhattan = $50K. So somehow the not-so rich manage to survive there.

$250K adjusted gross income = top 2% of the country.

"rich" by most people's standards, just not "super-rich".

[Frank Booth]

40. That wasn't my point, and I grew up in a place about as desolate as you can get in

the US, so I know that most people live on far, far less than $250k. I guess that's part of the reason I know you can live comfortably on $250k anywhere.

[spooky3]

60. Please re-read my post, which was not about living "fairly comfortably."

It's about fairness and equity in the tax system. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, and it is a concept on which the federal income tax system is supposedly based. Many companies also adjust salaries with geographic pay differentials.

If it costs your family twice as much in one city to have the *same* standard of living as in another city you should not be paying twice the tax (or more, which in reality you would be paying) as the second family in the other city. If you have the same standard of living, whether it is "fairly comfortable", "very comfortable", "hand-to-mouth" or anything else, you should be paying about the same income tax.

[Hannah Bell]

27. They're in the top 2% of *all* income tax filers, richer than 98% of the country.

I don't care whether they live in Manhattan or Des Moines.

The income share of the top 2% is larger than that of the bottom 50%.

Median household income in manhattan = $47K, median family income = $50K.

[spooky3]

61. You don't care about equity and fairness then.

Those people in Manhattan on $50K a year do NOT have the same standard of living as the people in Springfield making $50K a year. They should not pay the same income taxes. That is completely inconsistent with the philosophy underlying the entire federal income tax system.

Median household income in Fairfax County (one of the largest counties in the country) is over $100K annually. That is far less relevant than how expensive is it to live there.

It's not really pertinent to my argument, but you should be aware that other sources question that $50K figure for Manhattan. For example, per this source, the median PER CAPITA pay is $120K in "NY, NY" (and this would be much lower than household income):

http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/pcpihigh.cfm

If you want to discuss whether the progressive tax rates are insufficiently progressive for people who truly have the same real income, that is a completely different topic, with a lot of arguments to be made on both sides.

[TBF]

48. Very true - professionals earning a couple hundred thousand

in the major cities are today's middle class. They can still take vacations and pay for private schools (and service their own loan debt), and it's certainly better than being homeless. But it's hardly a luxurious life - probably equivalent to how most middle class families lived back in the 50's/60's.

Those earning in the millions, and many of those started with inherited wealth - it's just a whole different ball game.

Obama does need to let those tax cut expire, and they need to pay more attention to where the money in the top 1% is going.

But make no mistake - $250K is not rich - McCain was right when he estimated that $5M or so would be the level where you start seeing serious wealth.

[hfojvt]

15. but that was always the case, even before Reagan

the 70% tax bracket kicked in at about $300,000. I know this because in my senior year of high school I calculated the taxes on an income of 1 million dollars and it was very close to 70%. Of course, I knew nothing about Schedule A and other loopholes and deductions. The point is that a person making $400,000 was taxed at the same rate as somebody making $5 million and this was in 1979.

Most plumbers are probably not paying taxes at the highes rate, I would be very surprised if they were. And if they are, that puts them in the top 10% and that is pretty rarified company, if not in the same league as the top .1%.

But I am fully on board with more brackets. In 2001, the tax brackets looked like this:

15% on first $27,050
27.5% up to $65,550
30.5% up to $136,750
35.5% up to $297,350
39.1% for the rest

in 2008, they looked like this
10% on first $8.025
15% up to $32,550
25% up to $78,850
28% up to $164,550
33% up to $357,700
35% for the rest

It makes perfect sense to me to put in three more brackets
39.1% up to $500,000
45% up to $1,000,000 (1)
55% up to $5,000,000 (2)
65% for the rest (3)

At this point in history though, Republicans and conservadems would fillibuster such a proposal and the talking heads, who make over $2 million a year would be carrying water for the rest of the super-rich, calling it a huge, job-killing tax break, rampant socialism, unjust and unAmerican. Even though those rates are lower than the ones that prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s, to say nothing of the 1950s.

[Hannah Bell]

26. Though I agree with much of what you say, income tax filers making $250K are in the

top 2% of all filers.

They're richer than 98% of the population, so most people would consider them "rich," & I don't blame them for thinking so.

The other point is, they're ruling class in the sense that for the most part, they go along with & enforce the policies & programs of the rulers & have the same mindset. Doctors & lawyers aren't simple peasants, & I doubt many plumbers make $250K unless they own a business & hire other plumbers. In which case they're businesspeople, not plumbers.

Top 1% of filers = AGI > $410K.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Master Plumber - 200/hr 400K/yr.

If they work for a company they would take around half of that.

My point is only that highly skilled professionals, both blue and white collar, have incomes that touch on the data point that the OP considers 'rich'.

The other argument used is that 'well those way down the income scale consider anyone in the 200K range rich' - which I absolutely agree with. That is how the 15,000 keep us in line: they have us fighting each other over e.g. who is rich.

Doctors lawyers engineers etc. are not the ruling class, they are highly skilled professionals with a decent income. The ruling class is in fact those 15,000 uber wealthy. Why we cannot seem to grasp that, after 30 years of blatant plutocracy, drives me nuts.

[TBF]

49. I know it is all divisive tactics to keep us in-fighting.

Families making $250K a year are most likely worker bees (often with 2 incomes), and they are just holding on to a so-called "middle-class" lifestyle with that money.

[pipoman]

51. Maybe some place

but where I am at there ain't no plumbers billing $200/hr, the max is around $100 and that is for unionized commercial and industrial plumbers/steamfitters, the residential guys are around $85 at the top for union to $45 or so for the nonunion one-man-show.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. 80-100 is the going rate for union journeymen -

you can look it up too. Yes obviously non-union plumbers make less. The point here is not 'how much do plumbers make', I cited plumbers as they are in general well compensated highly skilled blue collar professionals, the point of which was to make sure that we understand that we workers are all in the same boat, it is a shitty boat, and the good boat is up over there, that nice safe cruise ship with 15,000 families on it.

[Hannah Bell]

56. Those making $250K/yr are the top 2% of filers; they aren't just "highly skilled professionals

making a decent income," they're the court enforcers of the ruling class. They do their bidding, have their mindset, & are richer than 98% of the population.

I take your point that these slice isn't necessarily ruling class.

I've known some plumbers, & none of them made an income approaching $400K/year. For one thing, they don't work 24-7, 50 weeks/yr. I doubt there are many unless they're corporate or business owners. For one thing, that puts them in the top 1%.

And if they're in the top 1%, they're rich.

Sorry, it's just ludicrous to confine the definition to the top .00001%. Those are the super-rich, but people who pull in more than 98% of the population in the richest country on earth are rich.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. That is just not true.

And you are engaged in exactly what I am talking about: the infighting between the peasants. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, and yes plumbers are not "the court enforcers of the ruling class".

[Hannah Bell]

66. what's not true, that those making $250K are the top 2% of filers, or that they

support the rulers?

In 2006, the bottom income cutoff for the top 2% of filers (adjusted gross income) was $250K. In 2007 (recession year) it was $260K & cutoff for the top 3% was 207K.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23408.html


This is a fact.

It's also a fact that the more income you make, the more likely you are to vote republican & support republican policies, & the bigger your voice & input into your local community.

In my local community, the big voices, the people who run things are:

1. Local business & large property owners
2. Reps of big non-local corporate businesses
3. Reps of local college, hospital, schools & service agencies
4. Reps of local unions
5. Local officeholders (99% selected from the list above)

For the most part, all of these people carry water for the ruling class. Some because they're uninformed, some because they actively support the same programs, some because they feel pressure to support them.

It's completely ahistorical to claim that the income class directly below the "rulers" doesn't carry water for the rulers. They do, they always have, and the rulers take a good amount of trouble to get that result. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE PAID SO WELL. DID YOU THINK IT WAS BECAUSE OF THEIR "MERITS"?

It's your contention that those 130K families run the entire country by themselves? That they have no court families to help them?

Never happened, ever, in history.

[ObamaIn2012]

65. Not this Joe the Plumber bullshit again

[BrklynLiberal]

5. Why is that fat man with the glasses grinning like a fool??

[bemildred]

12. I can think of one obvious (even tautological) explanation. nt

[Skink]

6. in my working life since 84 I have just about made 250,000.

working for rich people.

[BlueCheese]

9. Obama took away their tax cuts?

Explain. I thought the process still has to play out.

[David Zephyr]

22. They will expire without his signature on a bill that renews them.

.

[lonestarnot]

10. K & R!

[Statistical]

13. Why are you giving Obama credit for "taxing away their tax break"?

He hasn't (yet) done any such thing.

He indicated the tax cuts on >$200K SHOULD expire. That is a far cry from actually vetoing a bill to prevent their extension (in an election year and w/ middle class tax cuts in same bill).

[David Zephyr]

24. They will expire without his signature on a bill that renews them.

They are dead. I do him credit.

[Statistical]

32. You are easily fooled.

He hasn't signed anything.

He hasn't even said he WILL 100% absolutely veto any bill that extends the cuts for rich.

Bill comes to his desk w/ extensions for cuts to poor, middle class, and rich. He will "compromise" and sign it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/obama-refuses-veto-tax-cuts-rich/

We have seen this "story" a dozen times since he took office.

Step 1) Tough language. Great speeches.
Step 2) Democratic majority concedes the "left" viewpoint before debate begins (see Single payer)
Step 3) In "compromise" the bill gets pushed further to the right
Step 4) Most/All Republicans abandon the bill (they have already pushed it far enough to the right see HCR).
Step 4) Obama signs it and calls it a huge victory.

[Sal Minella]

16. Since that's twenty times what I live on,

I'd have to agree with you.

I cannot imagine what people do with that kind of money.

[unblock]

17. for one thing, "rich" cannot possibly be defined SOLELY by income

especially one single year's income, ignoring all other factors, such as age, state, net worth, number of dependents, how repeatable that income is, and so on.


let's say you've been a struggling manhattan writer all your life, you've got several adult kids who live with you because they have special needs, you're the only one in the family producing an income, it was always poverty level, and your spouse just passed on leaving you with a giant stack of medical debts.

finally, at the age of 65, your masterpiece gets published and you get a grand total of enough s that your taxable income is exactly $200,000. after you pay federal, state, and local taxes you can finally clear out a big chunk of the medical debt, perhaps even all of it, but there's little to nothing leftover.

somehow that doesn't sound like "rich" to me.


i know i'm being deliberately extreme but the point is that there are many factors, income is merely one of them.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

21. Well jeez, if you parse it enough, you can argue that no one is rich

However, if you ask the same family to live on my union wages, they would starve to death. Oh yes! Union wages! You know, those wages where we all get to live in Nirvana. Fuck you! Try to live in Silicon Valley on Union Wages. You live on rice and beans and then tell me how wonderful it is. That is what the lender from my home loan thinks I should be eating. But, my lender eats much better than I do.

[unblock]

39. i think it's safe to say there are definitely some rich people out there!

i just said that it's rather simplistic to zero in on taxable income and ignore everything else. but if you do look at all the other factors, there are certainly plenty of people who have a big income AND a lot of wealth AND have enough of each to comfortable handle the taxes and cost of living in their state and have enough productive years in front of them and so on.

oh, and i live on mac & cheese. rice & beans would be a step up from my usual diet.

[Yupster]

25. Another example

You just got out of med school and you have $ 250,000 of student loans to start paying on. You also have to buy much expensive equipment. You just got a job at a practice paying $ 210,000 your first year.

You probably will someday be rich, but you sure aren't now, and won't be for a few years at least.

On the other hand, you're a 32 year old part time worker for a charity making $ 10,000. Did I mention your last name is Kennedy and you have $ 8.4 million in tax free bonds? Even with your taxable income of $ 10,000, you're a lot richer than the other guy and probably always will be.

[unblock]

37. the example of having millions in tax-free bonds is a good one.

it makes the seemingly obvious case that WEALTH is a better determinant of whether or not you're "rich" than income is.
great wealth can be tied up in assets that produce little to no income, from equipment to real estate to art.

my mother used to do financial planning for clients, and every once in a while someone would ask to arrange it so that they paid as little as possible in taxes. she'd always ask, wouldn't you rather maximum your after-tax income? and they'd say, NO, they'd rather live with less money just so long as the government gets as little as possible! so mom put them in triple tax-free bonds, earning next to nothing, when they could have (at the time) been earning quite a lot even after taxes. rich, mean, and stupid are a terrible combination!

[Hannah Bell]

30. presumably all income groups have their share of those factors. However, people making $250K are in

the top 2% of all filers.

So parse *that*.

The rationalizations are ridiculous. The richer you are, the smaller & richer your family tends to be.

[Dr.Phool]

31. Do you understand "Marginal Income Tax Rates"?

If you make $200,001 you'll pay about $0.50 more than the guy who made $199,998. Tax rates are the same right up through the brackets. Only the amount above the $200k is taxed at the higher rate. The lower portions are taxed at the lower rates.

And the higher rates are going up, what, 4%? Whiney rich people act like they're getting robbed, forgetting the fact that their payroll taxes end at about the $100k mark. So, they're actually paying a lower effective tax rate than someone making $90k.

[unblock]

34. of course i understand marginal income tax rates

i'm only disputing the simplistic link between income and the term "rich".

i support letting the shrub tax hike happen on schedule and replacing them with a progressive obama middle class tax cut that does nothing for those over the amounts obama has suggested. i agree that the small marginal tax increase is a silly point of contention and the grand complaints republicans and conservadems toss about, as if a few percentage points on personal income taxes would kill the economy, are ridiculous.

i do think it's incorrect and not a great idea politically to act as if there's a grand divide between those above a certain income level and those under it. make the whole tax rate schedule gradually more progressive as income increases; there's no need to appear to target any particular income level.

[flvegan]

35. You don't know what "rich" is then.

Currently well off? Maybe, depending. Rich? Laughable.

[proteus_lives]

38. +1

[My Good Babushka]

41. A lot of time is wasted on deciding what is rich and what is not

We should focus on what makes us poor- working people's wages!
So the apologists are saying 250,000 is not really rich, but say you want to raise the minimum wage to 12 an hour, then they'll be screaming that 23,000 a year is a king's ransom.

[Hannah Bell]

42. +100

[elias7]

44. Now that is a statement without basis

You call people who disagree with the OP's declaration that 250k/yr is rich apologists. That is presumptuous in that you think you are right and they are wrong. You then state that you can predict how the same people will respond to a wage change, which is even more presumptuous. Maybe you should waste some time thinking in shades of gray rather than black & white.

I make over 250k/yr and I have been fighting to have my representatives to raise minimum wage my whole adult life, so how does that square with your statement? I am not rich, but my definition may differ from yours. The point is, if you're going to place the "rich" in the category that you have placed them (not caring about those making minimum wage), then you better define your terms.

Many democrats, believe it or not, make over 250k/yr, probably some of them have posted here (can you be rich and an apologist at the same time?), and I'd bet all would fight for a better living wage.

[pipoman]

45. Maybe the poster was presumptuous

but many Dems who make 250k would admit that they are in fact wealthy if not rich..the only way it wouldn't feel that way is if the person making 250k is so leveraged with debt that they can't see the money, which would likely mean they are surrounded with very upscale possessions. I mean how distorted is one's view point to not be willing to acknowledge a simple truth like this? What is rich anyway? I consider it never having to worry about money for the necessities of life and basic luxuries of life. and the ability to build a savings which will insure the same standard of living whether one is working or not in retirement. I don't believe anyone should be taxed out of the ability to do these things however.

[My Good Babushka]

53. I'm not talking about democrats on this board

or anywhere else. I'm talking about the conversation of the country every time the possibility of a minimum wage increase is broached. My "basis" for this comment was watching the minimum wage languish for 10 years followed by an anemic boost spread out over several years. Instead of piddling around like corporate geishas over who is rich and who is not, we should throw everything we've got into supporting the struggle for working people.

[elias7]

57. I understand...

I get a little hypersensitive when fingers are pointed or stereotypes are used. I am a physician and I try to avoid the health related posts because there's a lot of animosity towards the health profession. Doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies get thrown into one big black box often and people don't discern.

There's plenty of people with healthy incomes and no great immediate financial worries who don't place their own financial interests as highest priority. You probably banter with plenty of them in these forums every day and don't even know it.

I completely agree with your sentiment regarding definitions and regarding the debate "out there", however.

But just to needle you, I would say that for a family of four in the Northeast, 250k works out to "well off" bordering on "wealthy", but no where near "rich". "Rich" would be the people who summer in my town in their 2nd home mansions, kicking back at the lake country club (with the imported beach sand)...

[My Good Babushka]

59. well, to needle you...

if you feel bad about being well off you can commission me to do some work for you. It will alleviate your massive guilt :)
http://www.mygoodbabushka.blogspot.com
Rich around here is buying your food with money and not food stamps.

[uponit7771]

46. +1

[lukasahero]

54. Not everyone who makes that amt is your enemy

In fact, some are even for eliminating the tax cut as well as for raising the minimum wage.

Hate them all you want but you're fighting the wrong foe.

[Orrex]

55. I'm just about certain that you're missing her point.

I don't see her saying anything about hating anyone, nor do I see her attacking people who make over $250K. Your reply has nothing to do with her post.

Her point was that the discussion is always about some arbitrary threshold between wealthy and not-wealthy, when in fact we should be talking about the slave wages that have been inflicted upon the working poor for the past several decades. In that context, the wealthy are irrelevant, except insofar that they--as a class--are the ones who've been dictating the minimum wage. That's not an attack; it's a fact.

Anyone who thinks that this conversation is an attack on the wealthy really doesn't understand the underlying issue.

Additionally, if the $250K crowd can't take a little scrutiny, then they must be pathologically thin-skinned. The poor and middle classes are daily dissected in the public arena, but when someone dares to take a peek at the rich--and, yes, $250K per annum is rich--then the poor little rich kids bristle and howl about it.

No one is saying that Democrats can't make $250K per year. Hell, no one is even saying that Republicans can't make $250K per year. The point is that this privileged minority is the ultimate protected class, for no reason other than because they're wealthy.


For that matter, anyone who's struggling to survive on $250K anywhere in the US is welcome to spend a few years living on my salary. After that they can tell me how rich they weren't while making a quarter mill per year.

[uponit7771]

47. Our tax increase would be ~104$ a month realized and we're VERY VERY happy to pay it if it means ...

...it's going towards paying for something other than starting wars to take other countries natural resources and shit.

The 200-400k AGI's aren't the ones complaining about the tax increases coming January because it'll hardly be seen (IMHO) but the 10millin to 100million (yes, there people who make this much in AGI) are the ones squealing like pigs.

BTW: The tax rate for the 10 - 100million AGI used to be around the 70% of their income in the early 80s....guess who took it down to the high 20's claiming that they'll "invest" in America?!?!

Republican econ policies suck

[TBF]

50. Exactly right. nt

[msanthrope]

62. I agree. I pay my taxes, gladly. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

63. what is with...

the smarmy-assed look on Scalia's face. He looks like a sexual predator.

[KoKo]

64. Our Democrats need to "FRAME" what they do better...

but folks have been telling them that since Stolen Election 2000 ...and it never seems to stick.

:shrug:

[treestar]

67. Agreed.

At that level, you have all you need and more.