Union Protests are "Uprisings" Now.

[Disco Pickle]

If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.

right, you should raise them.  that doesn't squeeze at all.

[Requia ☣]

The rich are doing just fine right now, no reason to give them a break.

[LMNO]

If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.

right, you should raise them.  that doesn't squeeze at all.

You appear to have swallowed the misinformation that the Bush tax cuts (that were recently extended) were designed to lift the middle class burden.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.

Also, looking ahead 10-20 years might not hurt.  That means not turning teaching into a WalMart-type job.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.

right, you should raise them.  that doesn't squeeze at all.

Does the average family make $325K/year?  Because that's the break even point at which income tax relief outpaces increases in other taxes.

And a little hint, here:  The upper class doesn't actually purchase that much stuff.  The majority of purchasing is done by the middle & working classes...Who have been HURT by the tax cuts, when it's all said and done.

[Disco Pickle]

The rich are doing just fine right now, no reason to give them a break.

I'm curious what you think would be a fair break down of tax rates for income brackets.  not trolling, honestly curious.

You appear to have swallowed the misinformation that the Bush tax cuts (that were recently extended) were designed to lift the middle class burden.

it lifted everyone's tax burden.  you appear to believe we should have raised the taxes on just the rich.  Is that a magic pill that will fix the problems?

definitely needs to be something done about the AMT though, it served it's purpose but is now catching too many lower income earners IMO.

Also, looking ahead 10-20 years might not hurt.  That means not turning teaching into a WalMart-type job.

That, I believe, is the larger elephant in the room.  I assume you're talking about teacher salaries.  I hear a lot about it from the lady since she's finally doing the math on what she's going to be making for the next few years, while still paying off her Masters.  

And there should really be a longer outlook planned and saved for where possible.  The idea that well we'll just raise taxes on future tax payers to cover what we're spending now is a really big part of the problem.

If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.

right, you should raise them.  that doesn't squeeze at all.

Does the average family make $325K/year?  Because that's the break even point at which income tax relief outpaces increases in other taxes.

And a little hint, here:  The upper class doesn't actually purchase that much stuff.  The majority of purchasing is done by the middle & working classes...Who have been HURT by the tax cuts, when it's all said and done.

Do the upper class wear fewer clothes? do they eat less food? (obviously not having an ass ton of kids would mean yes)
they do tend to be nonsmokers, fewer drinkers, and less lottery ticket buying.  Here's a study by The Federal Reserve on The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 that showed that the upper income spectrum were inclined to spend the child tax credit rather than pay down debt, something the lower income brackets mostly did.

It's pretty dry unless you're a bit of a wonk, but worth a read IMO.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2005/200532/200532pap.pdf

the argument that the rich spend less, I believe, has a bit of a fatal flaw.  Keynesian multiplier concept when applied to the entire economy rather than to individual people, assumes that income not immediately spent is not spent at all.  Saving is not hoarding and while lower incomes will probably spend more on consumables immediately, buying stocks and bonds or depositing money in a bank doesn't mean money not spent, it means money not spent immediately on consumables.  It still gets spent, just usually on investments.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

it lifted everyone's tax burden.  

You don't actually pay taxes, I'm guessing.

[Disco Pickle]

it lifted everyone's tax burden.  

You don't actually pay taxes, I'm guessing.

why yes, I do.  I don't look for loopholes either.  We're talking the income tax, yes?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Do the upper class wear fewer clothes? do they eat less food? (obviously not having an ass ton of kids would mean yes)
they do tend to be nonsmokers, fewer drinkers, and less lottery ticket buying.  Here's a study by The Federal Reserve on The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 that showed that the upper income spectrum were inclined to spend the child tax credit rather than pay down debt, something the lower income brackets mostly did.

It's pretty dry unless you're a bit of a wonk, but worth a read IMO.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2005/200532/200532pap.pdf

the argument that the rich spend less, I believe, has a bit of a fatal flaw.  Keynesian multiplier concept when applied to the entire economy rather than to individual people, assumes that income not immediately spent is not spent at all.  Saving is not hoarding and while lower incomes will probably spend more on consumables immediately, buying stocks and bonds or depositing money in a bank doesn't mean money not spent, it means money not spent immediately on consumables.  It still gets spent, just usually on investments.

Rich people buy less for two reasons:

1.  There's less OF them, and

2.  The shit they buy is typically higher quality, and lasts a hell of a lot longer.

But there's no sense explaining that to someone who quotes witchdoctory (econ classes).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

it lifted everyone's tax burden.  

You don't actually pay taxes, I'm guessing.

why yes, I do.  I don't look for loopholes either.  We're talking the income tax, yes?

No.  I'm talking total tax burden.  If you make less than $325,000/year, you paid MORE in taxes, as state and municipal taxation had to go up to offset the decrease in federal spending.

[Cramulus]

You appear to have swallowed the misinformation that the Bush tax cuts (that were recently extended) were designed to lift the middle class burden.

it lifted everyone's tax burden.  you appear to believe we should have raised the taxes on just the rich.  Is that a magic pill that will fix the problems?

Yeah... Personally, I think it's a magic pill that will solve a lot of problems.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As for a "fair" tax rate, the mode income in the United States is a whopping $19,800/year.  

3M's CEO made $17,359,336 in that same year.

1.  Which has the ABILITY to pay taxes, and

2.  Who is benefiting from the system more?

So tell me, should we reduce the wages via taxation of those making $9.90/hour - barely making rent at that rate, or the guys making $8,500/hour?  

[Luna]

The newest changes to the tax tables shifted part of the burden, all right.  Shifted it from the mid-range incomes to the LOW-range incomes.

I've been listening to student employees bitch all year.  They never had taxes withheld before, even filing their W-4, single-zero, because they didn't make enough to have taxes withheld.  Now, they have taxes withheld, darn near ALL of them.  These are kids making around $200 in a two-week period.

[Disco Pickle]

it lifted everyone's tax burden.  

You don't actually pay taxes, I'm guessing.

why yes, I do.  I don't look for loopholes either.  We're talking the income tax, yes?

No.  I'm talking total tax burden.  If you make less than $325,000/year, you paid MORE in taxes, as state and municipal taxation had to go up to offset the decrease in federal spending.

property taxes went up in florida.  That effected everyone who has a house.  I'm out from under an upside down mortgage now and renting so that doesn't currently directly effect me, though it will in the future.  There haven't been any other increases that I'm aware of.  We don't have a state income tax.  Of course, inflated prices of food, gasoline, and rising utility costs are producing the same result on my paycheck so..  conceded, more or less. 

Yeah... Personally, I think it's a magic pill that will solve a lot of problems.

what are those problems you think will be solved?  balanced budget?  will Washington use that money to pay off the entire debt load?  income disparity aside, do you really trust Washington D.C. to do anything differently if they had the sudden windfall that would come from putting the tax rate for the ultra rich back at 70ish%?

[Cramulus]

here are some leaflets from the Ohio protests

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49324099/Ohio-Solidarity?in_collection=2874930

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49323112/Defend-Ohio-Leaflet?in_collection=2874930

what are those problems you think will be solved?  balanced budget?  will Washington use that money to pay off the entire debt load?  income disparity aside, do you really trust Washington D.C. to do anything differently if they had the sudden windfall that would come from putting the tax rate for the ultra rich back at 70ish%?

Well tax cuts for the rich sure haven't increased anybody's quality of life.

Various budget crises are fueling the unrest in Madison - according to one of those leaflets "In the past five years, tax cuts for corporations and the rich have reduced state revenues by $2 billion per year." --- how come worker's rights are on the table, but taxing the rich isn't?

Why should the poor and middle class pay for the damage that the financial sector has caused?