Taxes: A Question for Kerry Supporters

[MMMMMM]

^

[MMMMMM]

Well at the age of 50 you might have become somewhat "upper-class" in a sense--if you had actually managed to do all you say--but you still would have spent most of your life working as a well-paid middle-class grinder. Also there is no way to know for sure in advance just what your kids or health problems might cost you at some point.

I'm not knocking the middle-class lifestyle--thank goodness so many Americans are reasonably well-off--just saying it isn't the same as being truly "rich" or "upper-class".

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
Also there is no way to know for sure in advance just what your kids or health problems might cost you at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know exactly what kids will cost: food, clothes and some measure of my limited sanity. And health problems are covered by that medical plan I noted earlier.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Taxes aren't about punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel awfully punished when the extra amount of taxes I'm paying is going into someone else's pocket.

[ QUOTE ]
One justification is the idea that this is essentially a risk-hedge for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so what are the stated goals of the "risk-hedge" as Kerry certainly hasn't used this justification.

[ QUOTE ]
Another justification is that, in general, people with higher income reap greater benefits from the infrastucture etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

Who benifites more from entitlements like Medicare and Social security? The guy making $200,000 a year or the guy making $20,000 a year? Entitlements make up the lions share of the federal budget.

Progressive taxation is all about re-distributing income.

[ QUOTE ]
The real problem with the $200k number is that all $200,000 arent created equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep that's what myself and some others have been stating in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I don't have much along the lines of businesses, investements, real estate etc... which can often help out with creating tax deductions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep I've made this point as well, different income streams are taxed differently as I've pointed out in other posts.

[ QUOTE ]
I fit the profile pretty well of the type of person most screwed by Kerry's tax plans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably so from what I can gather.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still voting for Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not.

[Daliman]

no, it's not. It would be $9200 more on earnings OVER 200k. People seems to keep forgetting that.

Also, i think the # is 38.6%

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
If this is the case, and I believe it is, then why is there not more talk about closing down tax shelters and being able to try to stop people from evading taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, maybe because the types of people who write the tax laws are the ones who benefit most from tax-shelters/loopholes.

[1111]

I understand your arguments just fine, but I completely disagree with your premises. Anyone who makes more than 97% of the general populace yearly is clearly upper-class. Also, your claim that those who make 200k live a similar lifestyle as those making 50k is beyond absurd, which has been pointed out by another poster. To claim that those who, on a yearly basis, are in the top 3% of wage earners are not rich is just ridiculous...I don't even see how this is debatable honestly. What percentage of the populace, do you suppose, would consider 200k to be rich? 70%...maybe a bit more? For most people, not living month to month is rich.

[lastchance]

The risk-hedge is this. Everyone who is born has a certain percentage chance of starting off poor, just based on the percentage of the population you are born in.

Contrary to what a lot of people believe, you have to get lucky to get rich. You have to be very, very lucky. Of course, this is not for America, just considering the whole world.

Let us assume you have a 20% chance of being poor, based on where you were born and what life deals you. No matter who you are, if you are dealt the hand as bad as the one Andy Dufrense got in the "Shawshank Redemption" you're not going to be rich, period.

For the 80% chance you are not poor, of course John Kerry's tax plans do not help you, and probably hurt you. However, the risk-hedge thing happens because of the 20% chance you are poor, where John Kerry's plan helps you. If there is no medicare and Social Security in place, then that 20% becomes a lot worse, while 80% of the time, you get relatively marginal benefits.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your arguments just fine, but I completely disagree with your premises. Anyone who makes more than 97% of the general populace yearly is clearly upper-class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, because you say so, or because someone arbitrarily picks the 97th percentile as a demarcation point?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, your claim that those who make 200k live a similar lifestyle as those making 50k is beyond absurd, which has been pointed out by another poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why there are sub-classifications within the middle-class. And I didn't say that 50K and 200K live the same lifestyle, just that they both live middle-class lifestyles.

[ QUOTE ]
To claim that those who, on a yearly basis, are in the top 3% of wage earners are not rich is just ridiculous...I don't even see how this is debatable honestly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you harbor a common misconception as to what "rich" means. Net worth is far more determinant than income as to whether someone is "rich" or not.

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of the populace, do you suppose, would consider 200k to be rich? 70%...maybe a bit more?

[/ QUOTE ]

If so maybe they harbor the same misconceptions as you.

[ QUOTE ]
For most people, not living month to month is rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not living month to month is the absence of being poor. It also might surprise you that quite a number of families earning 200K are probably nearly living month to month in their own way. Having a six month's savings certainly isn't "rich". Also, it is net worth or assets which makes it possible to not live month to month, rather than income.

[1111]

Anyone who makes more than 97% of the general populace yearly is clearly upper-class. Arguing against that point, to me, is asinine. You can talk about net worth, general lifestyle, etc...but I do not see how you can dodge this simple point.