Is it $250,000 per family or per person?

[Smitty]

$125,000 per person in Seattle is a very nice income, but not THAT nice.

Why do all the commentators on MSDNC keep saying “incomes over $250,000” as if that is the per person income?

It’s households, correct?

Share This

[metrognome]

Smitty — it would be nice to know specifically what the heck you are talking about, such as what the MSNBC story was actually about. Maybe even a link to the story. Then someone can attempt to address your question.

Share This

[Smitty]

Sorry.

It’s not just them, it’s everyone. They say the Obama tax hikes would only affect incomes over $250,000 as if that is a per person threshold. My understanding is that the $250,000 is a household income threshold.

Why lie?

Share This

[Al]

$125K / year not “THAT nice?!” I would take it in a heartbeat AND pay the extra taxes. I think that most people in Seattle would take it AND pay the extra taxes as well since the median income here (in 2008) is around $61-$62K http://www.city-data.com/city/Seattle-Washington.html.

You must earn close to $125K to think it’s not that great.

Share This

[redblack]

i heard today that it’s individuals over $200,000, and households over $250,000 per annum.

smitty: wtf? really? my wife and i are in the top – ohh – 7-10% as a household, and we don’t make anywhere near an income that would be affected by restoring clinton-era tax rates.

i can’t imagine how much scorn and derision the lower classes are heaping on those who make more than them for having such a petty argument.

at long last, where is our sense of decency?

nonetheless, the missus and i have discussed this, and we agree that we’re okay with paying an extra $200-$400 yearly in taxes if it means keeping social programs solvent and funding economic growth on the backs of those in the 90th percentile of wage earners.

how the hell can anyone who makes over $250,000 a year gripe about taxes?

shameful.

hey, btw, republicans voted for tax increases on the middle class today. edit: my bad. they didn’t vote today. they will tomorrow, though.

:P

Share This

[JanS]

Smitty…I would defy you to live single on what I make…or many of us make. Your reality is not my reality, is not her/his reality. You haven’t got a clue what is out here in the real world, me thinks. I would consider $125K/annum being rich at this point in my life.

When there is nothing left to take from those who are not as comfortable as you, where do you expect the money to come from?

Share This

[Smitty]

JanS, I don’t necessarily disagree with you(for clarification, I am NOT in that bracket), but then why do they have to say $250,000, like that is the per annum amount? What are they afraid of?

Redblack looks to be correct with the individual amount being $200,000, so they should say “taxes will increase on those making $200,000 or more per year”, but they don’t.

Share This

[anonyme]

Failure to comprehend a very simple concept, widely and thoroughly explained, does not make the concept a lie. Instead, it reflects a flawed interpretation, either by ignorance – or design.

Share This

[Carson]

Actually, its income OVER $250,000 so you would see no increase in taxes on the first $250k, you would only pay higher taxes on income (adjusted, so its closer to 350K) over $250k.

Share This

[JoB]

My fellow forum members..

I curse you to make over $250,000 adjusted gross income (that’s after every deduction and tax shelter you can dream up) per household so that you will have to pay a higher tax rate on the excess.

you don’t even have to take me to dinner to say thanks.

Share This

[JayDee]

A surveyor asked a cross-section of Americans if they think their household income is in the top 1%. What percentage thought they were in the top 1%?

–

15%

–

You gotta love the U.S.

Share This

[Carson]

JayDee thats great. The top 1% wouldn’t answer a survey anyways! (they might have the hired help do it)

Share This

[Ken]

Smitty.

This thing you are using is called the internet.

Why must you fall into the stereotype of all Republicans and never ever post a link to either reference what you’re whining about or to back up your argument. Is it the illusion of deny-ability you seek or is it the fact that all your sources are as fact free as the results…

Yes I admit obfuscation, mudslinging and outright lies do work in this era of trained advertising consumers, but that does not mean we have to let it pass by without comment.

The tax cut proposal passed in the house yesterday was a cut on the first 250k of income for per family. That is the *first 250k* no matter what the total income is per family or per individual, is taxed at the rate equal to an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts.

If you did not whine about them when bushco passed them (using the “reconciliation method” das wingnuts whined about so hard when it was used to pass healthcare bandaids earlier this year) then I invite you the STFU now.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4853eah.txt.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c111wiU0yT::

The above links may or may not go to the pdf or full text of the bill as voted on since Thomas.gov is an exercise in obfuscation itself, and the bill hr 4853 is actually an amendment to some airport financing bill from earlier this year.

I include these links since each and every MSM news story consist of “he said she said” BS because the news media in this country have correctly surmised that those who still consume their tripe cannot read above a third grade level.

The whole thing is moot anyway since potus has surrendered without a shot fired, but it is good to see the Democrats at least supplying a little theater to make the Republican support for ONLY the top 1.1% of income bracket crystal clear to those who can read.

Share This

[dawsonct]

Schmitty, you DO realize that if you make $250,001, the higher tax rate will ONLY be collected on the $1.00, don’t you?

—

Can any of our conservative friends explain why someone whose only job is to deposit dividend checks (and they probably pay an accountant to do that), who do nothing other than shuffle paperwork around, who actually PRODUCE nothing, should pay only 17% on their profits?

Share This

[Smitty]

Guys, I understand the math and how taxes work. My issue is with the constant drumbeat that it is for PEOPLE making more than $250,000 when it is FAMILIES making more than $250,000. For single filers it is $200,000 – so that is what they should report.

The way it stands now it appears as if a single person, living alone would pay additional taxes (on the amount over $250,000) when in fact that person would pay more on the amount earned over $200,000.

Them media and the Ds are lying.

Note, I am not saying $200,000 is chump change, just saying they should either say FAMILIES over $250,000 or INDIVIDUALS over $200,000 to be fair.

Share This

[JoB]

Smitty,

Them democrats are lying?

And this is your evidence?

You know.. you really are having to work for this one.

people who live in political glass houses shouldn’t throw stones..

Those imaginary WMDs in Iraq didn’t bother you.

The “death squads” embedded in the Health Plan reform didn’t bother you.

Sarah’s continual exaggerations and outright lies don’t bother you… as long as she could take the presidency from the democrats.

But the media not making it clear that the higher tax rates would affect singles making over $200,000 adjusted income does?

really?

regardless of what the media reports…

no-one is having any difficulty understanding the nuts and bolts of the tax structure that ending the tax break on incomes exceeding $250,000 ADJ is based on.

That may be because there is nothing new here.

our current tax structure is based on income limits.

You may not see them if you take your tax off the tables.. but they are still there.

When and if most of us win the lottery and our income exceeds $250,000 a year, we will be able to afford the services of a really good tax accountant who will teach us how to distribute out wealth in such a way that our adjusted tax income squeezes right under the limits…

heck.. we could even donate to non-profit projects of our choice in lieu of increased taxes.

and if we win too much..

then we will just have to pay our taxes and appreciate our windfall.

Because honestly, winning the lottery is just about the only way that taxing income over $250,000 per household is going to become an issue for most of us.

Share This

[BigPhil]

Yes, this is the most important minutiae of inaccuracy in the media that we need to be outraged about. Especially considering that in 2010 97.73% of the ENTIRE COUNTRY MAKES LESS THAN $250,000 family income per annum.

The percentage is even higher for individuals making less than $200,000. So that means this detail really only matters to 2.27% of the population, because for the rest of us it means a tax break.

The data is all there for your perusal: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/faminc/new07_000.htm

But yes, lets get outraged about THIS…

Share This

[JoB]

BigPhil

it’s pretty amazing what being in the top 10% won’t buy you these days, isn’t it.

If the republicans in the senate have their way… our tax rate will be restored while those in the top 2% will get their tax break extended.

After all.. the fantasy is that the top 2% generate jobs with their spending…

the truth is that unemployment benefits.. as small as they are give more bang for their buck.. they are guaranteed to generate jobs because they are immediately reinvested in the community

luxury spending on products and services in the United States by the top 2% is iffy at best.

If trickle down is the goal..

they should give top 5% to 15% and additional tax break.

They are more likely to spend it:)

Share This

[skeeter]

Although I’m a Republican and voted for McCain, I’m in favor of letting the tax cuts expire on individuals earning over $200k and households earning over $250k. The country is running a huge deficit. We borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. Neither party is willing to cut spending in a meaningful way. So we have to increase taxes. I think Obama’s plan is solid and I support it.

Share This

[JoB]

Yeah Skeeter!

Share This

[JanS]

thank-you, skeeter. I hear constantly how we ALL have to SACRIFICE. All, meaning, us poor folk. This “sacrifice” stuff should be something that those in the top 1-2% should be proud of. Just think, they could save the country from going broke. What fine ‘murricans…how patriotic. “Yes…we’ll give up the tax breaks for the good of the country.” Oh? You say I’m dreaming? lolol…

Share This

[TDe]

Dear Lord, give me $200K a year and I’ll happily and joyously pay extra taxes on any amount above that!

Share This

[JanS]

TDe…ain’t that the truth!!!

Share This

[Smitty]

“**give** me $200K a year”

And there you have it.

But why do they keep saying 250K?

Share This

[Ken]

Oh the horror of the good old days of the 1941 tax rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/12/01/business/01retrographic.html?ref=economy

Lets roll them back eh tea-baggers?

If you don’t read history and rely on Beckerheads instead, not being able to afford that third vacation home in Hawaii seems like a terrible tragedy.

Share This

[Author]

Posts