Just FYI, Congress just gave tax breaks to people who earn nearly TWO THOUSAND BUCKS A DAY.

[TrollBuster9090]

And then said "and the 'two thousand and FIRST dollar you earn every day will only be taxed 4% more than it is now."

I don't get it.

Every (legitimate) economist in the world agrees that "trickle down" economics is B.S., and just dumping truckloads of money on people who are already wealthy does NOT create jobs. So....you obviously think that people who earn $34 THOUSAND BUCKS A MONTH are 'needy' and in need of tax relief?


Let me put that another way:

The people Congress just gave a permanent tax break to earn IN ONE MONTH what it takes somebody working for minimum wage THREE YEARS to earn. And congress thinks THESE are the people who are in need of tax relief? Giving ppl in this income bracket a continuing tax break will slow the process of balancing our budget, and rob people who are LEGITIMATELY needy of Govt. services they rely on.

This has nothing to do with "class warfare," it's just common sense.
1. Simply giving more money to people who already have mountains of it DOES NOT create jobs or stimulate the economy to any great degree.

2. On the other hand, we know that giving tax relief (ie-payroll tax holiday etc.) to people in the LOWER income brackets DOES stimulate the economy because they spend it in the local economy, instead of stashing it in the Cayman Islands, or investing it in Chinese companies with a higher growth rate.

3. Continuing to give tax relief to people who don't need it, and who won't use it to stimulate the economy will only worsen our debt problems.

The people who voted for this have worsened our debt crisis and passed up an opportunity to stimulate economic growth for no good reason. Nobody who voted for this should be allowed to call themselves a "progressive."

[unblock]

1. technically, someone who makes a million dollars a day still gets the benefit of those cuts

on their first few dollars of taxable income.

this is in the nature of a progressive tax structure.

on a few odd occassions, the tax cut has been written with a tax "bubble", to phase out in the higher tax brackets the benefits of a tax cut in the lower brackets. but the result was a slightly regressive structure in that range, so it doesn't have much enduring intellectual or political appeal.

phasing out deductions and exemptions seems to have more political appeal as it's not explicitly messing with the rate structure, though it has roughly the same effect.


in any event, yes, the various limits should have been $250,000 or perhaps even lower, but this is the price we paid for republicans controlling the house. personally, i think the 20% tax on investment income is by far the more heinous crime, as that's something that REALLY benefits the billionaires, and is completely inexcusable. yes it's better than 15%, but there's really no intellectual excuse for treating it better than labor income.

[exboyfil]

2. Especially when you consider all labor income up to $105K

is already taxed at over 15% before dollar one of income tax is paid (FICA and Medicare).