This is scary but could it happen here...?

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

So if a couple makes say 98,000 and lives in San Francisco...you would consider them wealthy?

If you will notice, that FICA cutoff amount is per employee as I clarified in a later post. So, the answer is NO, a couple making $98,000 would not be considered wealthy, in my opinion. They would be leaning into the upper-middle class. For a couple to be considered wealthy, in my opinion, their combined income woud have to be in the neighborhood of $160,000-$200,000.

I hope this helps to clarify the "economic analysis of Bubba."

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

On one hand we have data from the Congressional Budget Office based on all IRS returns and on the other you have an informal poll with a small sample taken by one man. If I tried to use something like that to make a point that you didn’t agree with you’d rip me a new one.

I am not arguing the fact that when you look at only the dollar amounts, that the rich do pay a lot of dollars in taxes. What I am trying to get you to understand is the ratio between the income made and the taxes paid is a smaller amount for the rich than it is for the middle class. Therefore, taxes are more of a burden to us in the middle class than it is to the rich.

[JayhawkMom]

Originally Posted by Bubba

I am not arguing the fact that when you look at only the dollar amounts, that the rich do pay a lot of dollars in taxes. What I am trying to get you to understand is the ratio between the income made and the taxes paid is a smaller amount for the rich than it is for the middle class. Therefore, taxes are more of a burden to us in the middle class than it is to the rich.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Bubba

I am not arguing the fact that when you look at only the dollar amounts, that the rich do pay a lot of dollars in taxes. What I am trying to get you to understand is the ratio between the income made and the taxes paid is a smaller amount for the rich than it is for the middle class. Therefore, taxes are more of a burden to us in the middle class than it is to the rich.

What I’m trying to get you to understand is that you have an isolated case with questionable methodology. We don’t know if the secretaries used W2 withholding or final tax numbers. We don’t know how many secretaries were included and what income bracket they might be in. Heck, we don’t even know if all of the folks involved used the same data or calculated it in the same way. You started talking about Bush tax cuts which didn’t include SS and Medicare taxes and then hold up an example that included SS and Medicare taxes so you’re comparing apples and oranges. It also appears that Mr. Buffett took a one time sample instead of a timeline comparison over years to compare before and after that tax cuts.

The CBO numbers that include all tax returns and compare over several years of time do not support the assertion that you’re trying to make.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

What I’m trying to get you to understand is that you have an isolated case with questionable methodology. We don’t know if the secretaries used W2 withholding or final tax numbers. We don’t know how many secretaries were included and what income bracket they might be in. Heck, we don’t even know if all of the folks involved used the same data or calculated it in the same way. You started talking about Bush tax cuts which didn’t include SS and Medicare taxes and then hold up an example that included SS and Medicare taxes so you’re comparing apples and oranges. It also appears that Mr. Buffett took a one time sample instead of a timeline comparison over years to compare before and after that tax cuts.

The CBO numbers that include all tax returns and compare over several years of time do not support the assertion that you’re trying to make.

OK, you keep thinking that, if it makes you feel better.

[lurker]

If the rich guy paid more in taxes then I'd bet he'd pay less in wages.... translation: job cuts.

Some folks want that money to go to the Washington. Other guys want it to remain in the private sector.

Either way, the money doesn't disappear. I'll always appreciate it remaining in circulation within the private sector as compared to our CONgress critters handing it out....

It really doesn't have anything to do with rich or poor; unless you agree that 'poor' only applies to our (poor) choice of who we allow to spend it.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by lurker

If the rich guy paid more in taxes then I'd bet he'd pay less in wages.... translation: job cuts.

Some folks want that money to go to the Washington. Other guys want it to remain in the private sector.

Either way, the money doesn't disappear. I'll always appreciate it remaining in circulation within the private sector as compared to our CONgress critters handing it out....

It really doesn't have anything to do with rich or poor; unless you agree that 'poor' only applies to our (poor) choice of who we allow to spend it.

So what you are saying then is if there was a tax cut per say on the top 20% that they would take that money and reinvest it into the economy be it investments or expanding their business or hiring more employees. If that top 20% gets their taxes raised then, in order to still make money or retain their profit they lay off people and cut wages....

So either way money ends up in the pocket of the worker bee whether it comes from working for it or the gov't giving it to them?

[Army_of_One]

Lurker, you seem to know a little about taxes. I have a ? for you. Is the minimum wage increase also a tax increase for the gov't? I look at it like this: When Joe Grocery Store Workers wage's go up then that's more tax the employer has to pay the gov't on his wages. In turn to keep his profit level up Joe Grocery Store owner raises prices in his store resulting in people paying more sales tax because they are now spending more at the store. I haven't taken economics yet so I'm pretty slow on this topic but trying to understand how the things work.

Also if the gov't can set a minimum wage and it's not set based on the economy or market driven could they set a maximum wage? Could they set a minimum wage for different sectors? IE Nurse's, plumbers etc? Shouldn't the market drive the minimum wage?

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

...Is the minimum wage increase also a tax increase for the gov't? I look at it like this: When Joe Grocery Store Workers wage's go up then that's more tax the employer has to pay the gov't on his wages....

It would sure work that way with the FICA.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

So what you are saying then is if there was a tax cut per say on the top 20% that they would take that money and reinvest it into the economy be it investments or expanding their business or hiring more employees. If that top 20% gets their taxes raised then, in order to still make money or retain their profit they lay off people and cut wages....

So either way money ends up in the pocket of the worker bee whether it comes from working for it or the gov't giving it to them?

Not perzactly. Private sector monies can be spent on goods and services, or invested in business and industry. Tax monies instill power in CONgress critters as they dole it out.... as welfare, skuwel funding, bridges to nowhere, pork and defending our borders.

I chuckle at the idiocy of 'believing' that Washington deserves more money.