NationStates Jolt Archive


Sorry Middle Class, you're screwed.

Wilgrove
14-03-2008, 08:48
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has rejected an extension of President Bush's tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.

The partisan 52-47 vote was largely symbolic and followed an overwhelming vote endorsing cuts aimed at low-income workers, married couples and people with children. But it put senators in both parties on the record for when the tax cuts actually expire in three years.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, voted for the additional tax cuts. Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against them.


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has embraced the idea of extending President Bush's tax cuts aimed at low-income workers, married couples and people with children after he leaves office.

The overwhelming 99-1 vote was largely symbolic. But it put senators in both parties on the record for when the tax cuts expire in three years.

Republicans complain that a plan for future tax cuts by Montana Democrat Max Baucus would still permit increases in income tax rates and higher taxes on investments and stock sales.

Link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSu1RI33g5jZfU8YAz7ZFmoPbb7AD8VCKT900)

So, Married Couples, low income workers, and people with children get tax cuts. However, those of us who are in middle class, don't have children, and aren't married get screwed over. Not to mention people who invest in business, and those who will get businesses and estate won't get tax cuts. Senator Mc. Cain supports the Bush's tax cut as it was, but Obama and Clinton wants to roll back for the group I just mentioned above.

It's strange, I thought Clinton and Obama cared about the Middle Class, and getting the USA economy back on track. Well you can't do that by taxing the business and investors.

That's just great, it really is.
Soheran
14-03-2008, 08:50
However, those of us who are in middle class, don't have children, and aren't married get screwed over.

Not getting a tax cut is "get[ting] screwed over"?
Wilgrove
14-03-2008, 08:53
Not getting a tax cut is "get[ting] screwed over"?

Yes, because we liked those tax cuts, we enjoyed getting the extra money that we could save up or invest back into the economy. Everyone is always talking about how important the middle class is, and how the economy's erasing the middle class etc. This kind of talk comes from politicians the most, and yet, they don't do anything to support the Middle Class when you get right down to it.
Lunatic Goofballs
14-03-2008, 08:53
I guess it's a bad time to be a middle class bachelor(bachelorette). :p
Risottia
14-03-2008, 08:54
So, Married Couples, low income workers, and people with children get tax cuts. However, those of us who are in middle class, don't have children, and aren't married get screwed over. Not to mention people who invest in business, and those who will get businesses and estate won't get tax cuts.

Usually the lower class needs more help, be it in form of tax cuts or welfare or whatever else. That's just what's happening.
So what?

I don't think that someone who's inheriting real estate or owns an oil refinery needs tax cuts, btw. We can talk about cutting the taxes on the industry itself (so to create more jobs), not on the individual shareholders.
Wilgrove
14-03-2008, 08:56
Usually the lower class needs more help, be it in form of tax cuts or welfare or whatever else. That's just what's happening.
So what?

I don't think that someone who's inheriting real estate or owns an oil refinery needs tax cuts, btw. We can talk about cutting the taxes on the industry itself (so to create more jobs), not on the individual shareholders.

The problem with taking away the tax cuts on investors is there is less to invest into the business, if there's less to invest then they're probably going to hike up the price of their product to make up for the losses, which is going to hurt the consumers (mainly Middle Class and lower) more.
Tech-gnosis
14-03-2008, 08:58
Yes, because we liked those tax cuts, we enjoyed getting the extra money that we could save up or invest back into the economy. Everyone is always talking about how important the middle class is, and how the economy's erasing the middle class etc. This kind of talk comes from politicians the most, and yet, they don't do anything to support the Middle Class when you get right down to it.

Tax cuts are called for when there's a growing budget deficit? Since when? Denying tax cuts for estate taxes when estates for under 600K are exempt hurt the middle class how? Warren Buffet pays less % of his income in taxes than his secretary. Taxing him less would help the middle class how?
Soheran
14-03-2008, 09:06
Everyone is always talking about how important the middle class is, and how the economy's erasing the middle class etc.

That's why they're preserving the ones for married couples and people with children.
Wilgrove
14-03-2008, 09:07
That's why they're preserving the ones for married couples and people with children.

The middle class is more than just married couples and those with children.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
14-03-2008, 09:18
Well, thank God I'm not middle-class, eh? :p One day, maybe...
Andaras
14-03-2008, 09:19
Only solution is 100% taxation with equal redistribution.
Magdha
14-03-2008, 09:21
Only solution is 100% taxation with equal redistribution.

Have fun watching your economy collapse.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
14-03-2008, 09:22
Only solution is 100% taxation with equal redistribution.

There isn't enough empty land in the U.S. to bury the looted corpses of the tax collectors who would die trying to enforce *that*. :p
Trollgaard
14-03-2008, 09:26
Only solution is 100% taxation with equal redistribution.

...
what?!

Do you realize you are talking about America here? There would be a very bloody rebellion overnight, and rightly so! Taking 100% of what people earn is a crime.
Andaras
14-03-2008, 09:30
...
what?!

Do you realize you are talking about America here? There would be a very bloody rebellion overnight, and rightly so! Taking 100% of what people earn is a crime.

Actually 100% is giving everybody 100% of what they earn.
Trollgaard
14-03-2008, 09:35
Actually 100% is giving everybody 100% of what they earn.

You aren't talking about giving people 100% of their income, however. You said people should have all their money and have the same amount of pay as everyone else, regardless of how much effort they put forth in their job.
Wilgrove
14-03-2008, 09:35
Actually 100% is giving everybody 100% of what they earn.

So if taking 100% of what they earn is giving them 100% of what they earn, then why tax them at all?
Sirmomo1
14-03-2008, 10:23
How are we defining middle class?
Jabadabi
14-03-2008, 10:48
Only solution is 100% taxation with equal redistribution.

Actually 100% is giving everybody 100% of what they earn.

So what you are trying to say is that no one pays tax on their income :headbang:?
Jabadabi
14-03-2008, 10:51
How are we defining middle class?

Ronnie Barker, Ronnie Corbett and John Cleese;

Cleese starts by looking sideways of Barker and saying, "I am upper class, so I look DOWN on him" Barker replies, "I am middle class, so I look UP to him (Cleese), but I look DOWN on him"; looking down on Corbett.

Corbett retorts, " I am working class. I know my place!":p:p
Pure Metal
14-03-2008, 10:58
So, Married Couples, low income workers, and people with children get tax cuts. However, those of us who are in middle class, don't have children, and aren't married get screwed over.

sounds alright to me.

and tax cuts are not a sustainable way to benefit an economy. if any one social strata gets dependent, or even just used to, having tax cuts this is a wholly unsustainable method of spurring economic growth. if, indeed, the "trickle-down" effect is even valid anyway.


besides, the socialist in me would prefer a move towards more progressive tax (poor pay less) in the name of distributive justice.
Barringtonia
14-03-2008, 11:04
So, Married Couples, low income workers, and people with children get tax cuts.

i.e. those who need it.

However, those of us who are in middle class, don't have children, and aren't married get screwed over.

Single, childless middle class workers tend to have a reasonable amount of spare cash to throw around anyway, they're very rarely investing unless you count buying a six-pack of beer an investment.

Aside from the rich, they're probably the best to tax compared to those who need to pay for children, which throws up random costs, or married couples who are either looking to buy property or have a child.

And yes, not ALL people fit into these definitions but it's not that far off.

*Says me who lives where it's 15% flat rate and we got 75% off this year to boot but I chose to live here and hey, as the libertarian you are, choice is everything eh?
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
14-03-2008, 11:09
besides, the socialist in me would prefer a move towards more progressive tax (poor pay less) in the name of distributive justice.

The poorest 40% or so already pay nothing.
Verdigroth
14-03-2008, 11:15
Maybe we should go back to tariffs on goods coming into the market and corporate taxes and forgo taxes on individual incomes.
Pure Metal
14-03-2008, 11:21
The poorest 40% or so already pay nothing.

source?
Khadgar
14-03-2008, 11:40
The senate refused to extend tax cuts when we're massively in debt? Good for them.
Abju
14-03-2008, 11:51
Link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSu1RI33g5jZfU8YAz7ZFmoPbb7AD8VCKT900)

It's strange, I thought Clinton and Obama cared about the Middle Class, and getting the USA economy back on track. Well you can't do that by taxing the business and investors.

That's just great, it really is.

And just how would tax cuts get a country back on track?

Basic economics: If you reduce your income then you have to either borrow (debt) or reduce your expenditure (budget cuts). This means the government is spending less which means lay-offs, scaling back projects, or axing projects altogether. Not good.

If the economy is off track a sensible government response is to raise personal taxation to maintain revenue flows and keep the budget on track and minimise scale-backs, lay-offs and project delays. This will also help the private sector, most of which feeds off government projects. Smaller business that are vulnerable can be given small, targeted tax breaks or direct assistance, as well as ensuring the security net is primed and ready to deal with the social impacts of any slow down.

I see no reason why giving tax breaks to middle class individuals would be of importance to the economy as a whole, other than it simply being a case of "We dont like paying taxes", which isn't really much of an excuse.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
14-03-2008, 11:59
source?

During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Doesn't bother me too much, seeing as I'm one of the non-payers. I feel blessed, really. :p
Corneliu 2
14-03-2008, 12:32
Link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSu1RI33g5jZfU8YAz7ZFmoPbb7AD8VCKT900)

So, Married Couples, low income workers, and people with children get tax cuts. However, those of us who are in middle class, don't have children, and aren't married get screwed over. Not to mention people who invest in business, and those who will get businesses and estate won't get tax cuts. Senator Mc. Cain supports the Bush's tax cut as it was, but Obama and Clinton wants to roll back for the group I just mentioned above.

does this mean I get a double tax cut beginning in August? :D
Forsakia
14-03-2008, 12:32
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Doesn't bother me too much, seeing as I'm one of the non-payers. I feel blessed, really. :p

That doesn't say poorest. Would it be too cynical to suggest a fair proportion of those may be non-poor who know how to manipulate the system.
Corneliu 2
14-03-2008, 12:35
Only solution is 100% taxation with equal redistribution.

Failed economics did you?
Pure Metal
14-03-2008, 12:42
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Doesn't bother me too much, seeing as I'm one of the non-payers. I feel blessed, really. :p

fair enough... though the article doesn't say anything about the income of the non-payers. one can assume its low(est) earners, i guess. i must say i'm surprised.

there was an article in the Times a couple of months back (here in the UK) which said recent research showed that of the top 20 (iirc) billionares in this country, between them they only paid £7 million in tax in 2006, on earnings in the hundereds of millions. me no likey.
Mexican Water
14-03-2008, 12:53
The way I see it, the whole point of tax cuts is so people can consume or maybe invest more, but the government incurs more debt, but this brings an inherent problem since the US economy is based on consumption which isn't exactly sustainable. And tax cuts, like most economic theories are idealised, they think that people will spend on commodities from the country itself, but since the US imports a lot of consumer goods, this might not be the best idea after all. For all you know, those tax cuts could just give Toyota a huge increase in profit.

Besides, the wealth of a country isn't about how much the top 10% earn; which sadly seems to be the case with the US.
Sirmomo1
14-03-2008, 14:40
Why do the middle classes need the extra money btw?
Saucy Tacos
14-03-2008, 14:58
My family is the perfect example of middle class.

When I was getting ready to go to a tech school, I found out my parents make too much money to get financial aid, but we don't make enough money so they can't easily pay for it.

Middle class is more or less people with too much money to get government benefits, but not enough to get everything without it.

Besides most of the lower class are people who are to lazy to work, but want the benefits of people who do.
Sanmartin
14-03-2008, 15:02
Usually the lower class needs more help, be it in form of tax cuts or welfare or whatever else. That's just what's happening.
So what?

I don't think that someone who's inheriting real estate or owns an oil refinery needs tax cuts, btw. We can talk about cutting the taxes on the industry itself (so to create more jobs), not on the individual shareholders.

If you're below a certain income level, you essentially don't pay any Federal income tax. So stop saying the lower class needs more tax cuts, unless you're planning on giving them money for simply existing.

As for welfare, there are a lot of working poor, and they don't get welfare (not full subsistence), although there are programs for medical assistance and assistance for food.

The tax cuts the OP is talking about aren't tax cuts for the rich, or people inheriting huge items.

We're talking about people in the middle class.
Andaluciae
14-03-2008, 15:14
Only solution is 100% taxation with equal redistribution.

Common, armed thievery, chief.
Andaluciae
14-03-2008, 15:18
Failed economics did you?

He's like the girl in third grade who insisted that unicorns were real.
Sanmartin
14-03-2008, 15:20
He's like the girl in third grade who insisted that unicorns were real.

"My Little Commie"?
Andaluciae
14-03-2008, 15:26
"My Little Commie"?

Can you imagine Stalin, as illustrated by Lisa Frank?
Intangelon
14-03-2008, 15:40
Yes, because we liked those tax cuts, we enjoyed getting the extra money that we could save up or invest back into the economy. Everyone is always talking about how important the middle class is, and how the economy's erasing the middle class etc. This kind of talk comes from politicians the most, and yet, they don't do anything to support the Middle Class when you get right down to it.

Save up? Really? In an economy where the first thing W said after 9/11 was SPEND, AMERICA? Credit card debt is through the roof. If that money is "invested" anywhere, it's invested in Visa, MC and AMEX. Not to mention the sub-prime debacle and everything else that seems to be preying on the obsession the middle class has for "stuff". Wealthy people stay wealthy largely because they DO invest and don't waste their money on mass-produced cheap crap from overseas (they also get help with people who want to do away with inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes and anything else that might inconvenience the rich by making them pay their fair share).

The problem with taking away the tax cuts on investors is there is less to invest into the business, if there's less to invest then they're probably going to hike up the price of their product to make up for the losses, which is going to hurt the consumers (mainly Middle Class and lower) more.

Horseshit. Are you telling me that a company posting record profits (like oil companies, for example), not INCOME, but PROFITS (money ABOVE and BEYOND operating costs and financial obligations), somehow NEEDS tax relief? Shit fire and save matches (translation: "come now, be reasonable")!

My family is the perfect example of middle class.

When I was getting ready to go to a tech school, I found out my parents make too much money to get financial aid, but we don't make enough money so they can't easily pay for it.

Middle class is more or less people with too much money to get government benefits, but not enough to get everything without it.

You mean benefits beyond infrastructure? Take it from a lower-middle-class boy. Student loans at less than 4% interest (enrollment in automatic payment and on-time payments for two years got me down to 3.45%) are the way we're meant to pay for college, along with Pell Grants and work-study. I used them all. If your parents' income is outside of even work-study help, then I have to wonder if they saved anything for the eventuality of you going to college. Failing that, their good credit (I assume) should get you an excellent student loan rate, and student loan debt is good debt (well, as good as debt can be, at any rate).

Besides most of the lower class are people who are to lazy to work, but want the benefits of people who do.

Aw, nuts. Here you had me thinking you were reaonable and intelligent. :(

Oh well.
Myrmidonisia
14-03-2008, 15:47
Not getting a tax cut is "get[ting] screwed over"?

Nope, but getting a huge tax increase is...

This tax hike in 2012 will cost money and jobs in EVERY Congressional district.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/budgetres09.htm

Average cost is about $3000 per family. Ya gotta love those Dems.
New Texoma Land
14-03-2008, 16:05
Link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSu1RI33g5jZfU8YAz7ZFmoPbb7AD8VCKT900)

So, Married Couples, low income workers, and people with children get tax cuts. However, those of us who are in middle class, don't have children, and aren't married get screwed over. Not to mention people who invest in business, and those who will get businesses and estate won't get tax cuts. Senator Mc. Cain supports the Bush's tax cut as it was, but Obama and Clinton wants to roll back for the group I just mentioned above.

It's strange, I thought Clinton and Obama cared about the Middle Class, and getting the USA economy back on track. Well you can't do that by taxing the business and investors.

That's just great, it really is.

I doubt you're getting "screwed over."

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

Skip to next paragraph The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners."

"Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.

Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So it seems one has to earn $50,000+ to be middle class in the US. How many here qualify? Not me. And I'm willing to bet not many single people do. You really need two incomes to break into that tax bracket.
Leksicon
14-03-2008, 16:05
Besides most of the lower class are people who are to lazy to work, but want the benefits of people who do.

I'm poor. I want nothing more than to get my CDL-A. I've tried working with companies that help people get their CDL-A's, but haven't had much luck. I am otherwise too poor to get my CDL-A. Perhaps you can explain how I'm too lazy to get my CDL-A without help?

BTW, I'm also very agoraphobic. I need someone to go with me whenever I leave the house. However, since I want to go OTR, this should not be a problem since the truck would become my home, and the only times I'd be leaving it would be to visit the assorted truckstops.

Oddly, I'm less agoraphobic if I know I'm just passing through. No chance for people to get to know me, see, which means I'm just a shade, another random stranger to them. Practically invisible.
Intangelon
14-03-2008, 16:05
Nope, but getting a huge tax increase is...

This tax hike in 2012 will cost money and jobs in EVERY Congressional district.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/budgetres09.htm

Average cost is about $3000 per family. Ya gotta love those Dems.

How is it a hike when taxes were previously cut? I love the semantic chicanery involved here. Failing that, where's the baseline? What's the tax rate that keeps the nation going and replaces infrastructure when it wears out and makes improvements or upgrades when needed and guarantees Social Security, and so forth? Once you can find that baseline, THEN we can talk about what's a cut and what's a hike.
Intangelon
14-03-2008, 16:09
I doubt you're getting "screwed over."

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

Skip to next paragraph The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners."

"Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.

Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So it seems one has to earn $50,000+ to be middle class in the US. How many here qualify? Not me. And I'm willing to bet not many single people do. You really need two incomes to break into that tax bracket.

Not me, either.

I'm poor. I want nothing more than to get my CDL-A. I've tried working with companies that help people get their CDL-A's, but haven't had much luck. I am otherwise too poor to get my CDL-A. Perhaps you can explain how I'm too lazy to get my CDL-A without help?

BTW, I'm also very agoraphobic. I need someone to go with me whenever I leave the house. However, since I want to go OTR, this should not be a problem since the truck would become my home, and the only times I'd be leaving it would be to visit the assorted truckstops.

Oddly, I'm less agoraphobic if I know I'm just passing through. No chance for people to get to know me, see, which means I'm just a shade, another random stranger to them. Practically invisible.

And therefore, THE PERFECT SUSPECT FOR THE MURDER OF MORTIMER J. DIPHTHONG! Officer, arrest that man.
Myrmidonisia
14-03-2008, 16:12
How is it a hike when taxes were previously cut? I love the semantic chicanery involved here.
If taxes that aren't there now are suddenly imposed, that's an increase, no matter how you slice it. Failing to identify increased taxes as increased taxes is just plain dishonest. No one but politicians and partisan hacks will fall for that one.
The Parkus Empire
14-03-2008, 16:15
The Ants and the Grasshopper:

Some Members of a Legislature were making schedules of their wealth at
the end of the session, when an Honest Miner came along and asked them to
divide with him. The members of the Legislature inquired:

"Why did you not acquire property of your own?"

"Because," replied the Honest Miner, "I was so busy digging out gold that
I had no leisure to lay up something worth while."

Then the Members of the Legislature derided him, saying:

"If you waste your time in profitless amusement, you cannot, of course,
expect to share the rewards of industry."


King Log and King Stork:

The People being dissatisfied with a Democratic Legislature, which stole
no more than they had, elected a Republican one, which not only stole all
they had but exacted a promissory note for the balance due, secured by a
mortgage upon their hope of death.


-Fantastic Fables, by Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce.
Slaughterhouse five
14-03-2008, 16:21
middle class and upper class are more likely to use tax cuts to put back in the economy in a way that would provide growth.
Intracircumcordei
14-03-2008, 16:26
fair enough... though the article doesn't say anything about the income of the non-payers. one can assume its low(est) earners, i guess. i must say i'm surprised.

there was an article in the Times a couple of months back (here in the UK) which said recent research showed that of the top 20 (iirc) billionares in this country, between them they only paid £7 million in tax in 2006, on earnings in the hundereds of millions. me no likey.

Taxes are based on "increased value" chances are they had a whole bunch of business expenses. In Branson (one of the Richest people in the UK, utilizes offshore trusts that reinvest the earnings back into ventures, making them buiness expenses thus deductables from being taxed)

It is a well known fact that the top 20% of people holding wealth in the US pay 80% of the taxes (how many of them make their money from US tax dollars/ DND contracts etc.. is another issue completly keep thinking amerca ain't socialist you might be suprized.

PS any attractive female americans who are interested in marrying me up to the age of 35 years old, after of course falling in love with me (maybe for me saving you some tax funds) let me know. I've been looking to get American Citizenship just for the hell of it, it makes travelling to the US easier.
Intangelon
14-03-2008, 16:30
If taxes that aren't there now are suddenly imposed, that's an increase, no matter how you slice it. Failing to identify increased taxes as increased taxes is just plain dishonest. No one but politicians and partisan hacks will fall for that one.

And failing to identify a return to a level of taxation (from a previous election-cycle-pandering cut) that actually sustains things like the entire federal budget AND the war on terror is just as dishonest. No one but politicians and partisan hacks will fa-- oh wait, the US electorate did in 2004 (not in 2000, but that's another thread).

middle class and upper class are more likely to use tax cuts to put back in the economy in a way that would provide growth.

How? I keep hearing this, and I have to tell you, I don't see a lot of middle class investment in anything but higher-quality stuff. Maybe a 401k or a college savings plan, but how do those provide growth beyond the portfolios of the investment counselors and bankers?
Nanatsu no Tsuki
14-03-2008, 17:29
Yes, it is.
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wealth2001.jpg
Peepelonia
14-03-2008, 17:37
Yes, because we liked those tax cuts, we enjoyed getting the extra money that we could save up or invest back into the economy. Everyone is always talking about how important the middle class is, and how the economy's erasing the middle class etc. This kind of talk comes from politicians the most, and yet, they don't do anything to support the Middle Class when you get right down to it.

Umm it make perfect sense to me, those without the money get the tax breaks those with it, well they don't need em huh!
Slaughterhouse five
14-03-2008, 17:40
How? I keep hearing this, and I have to tell you, I don't see a lot of middle class investment in anything but higher-quality stuff. Maybe a 401k or a college savings plan, but how do those provide growth beyond the portfolios of the investment counselors and bankers?

The lower income group is more likely to buy commodities which do not contribute much to growth of the economy

or pay off debts already owed, this is essentially money already paid in the economy. the other possiblity that could happen is that they would see a "free" source of money and over spend beyond the amount they are getting for "free". which may help the economy initially, will end up causing problems later on.

while middle income will also often see this as "free" money and overspend but being middle income they can recover from this much faster. some financialy intelligent will invest this money in the market in some form and that itslef will help.

all in all short term fixes such as this dont do anything in the long run. if a politician was really trying to change the economy for the long haul they would push for finance teaching in school systems. a high school student should not graduate without first knowing essentially how to live in society this includes finance.
The Black Forrest
14-03-2008, 19:37
Meh. So I get to give back a grand or two.

I seem to recall that 80-90% of the tax cuts benefited the wealthy class.

Tax cuts didn't do much for me in the first place.
Khadgar
14-03-2008, 19:55
Nope, but getting a huge tax increase is...

This tax hike in 2012 will cost money and jobs in EVERY Congressional district.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/budgetres09.htm

Average cost is about $3000 per family. Ya gotta love those Dems.

Someone had to pay for Bush's imperialism. It's been expected for quite some time. I guess the Republican plan however was just wait til the next generation. Yay for personal responsibility.


Yes, it is.
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wealth2001.jpg

That image is horrifyingly misleading. The scale is way off.
Lolwutland
14-03-2008, 20:05
Relax, the middle class are not getting taxed to an extent where the middle class are loosing motivation for investment and business.
Pepe Dominguez
14-03-2008, 22:06
I'm poor. I want nothing more than to get my CDL-A. I've tried working with companies that help people get their CDL-A's, but haven't had much luck. I am otherwise too poor to get my CDL-A. Perhaps you can explain how I'm too lazy to get my CDL-A without help?

BTW, I'm also very agoraphobic. I need someone to go with me whenever I leave the house. However, since I want to go OTR, this should not be a problem since the truck would become my home, and the only times I'd be leaving it would be to visit the assorted truckstops.

Oddly, I'm less agoraphobic if I know I'm just passing through. No chance for people to get to know me, see, which means I'm just a shade, another random stranger to them. Practically invisible.

I didn't pay a penny up-front to get my CDL. School was about 5 grand, but Swift (I don't mind naming my former employer, since I was one of 20,000 drivers at the time) covered $2,000 of it, and I paid back the rest at 300$/month afterward. Give them a call if you can't find anything better.

As for the agoraphobia, you'd have it made driving a truck. You can easily go six months at a time without exchanging a single word with another person, beyond truckstop cashiers, who don't ask you personal questions of course.
The blessed Chris
14-03-2008, 22:33
Only solution is 100% taxation with equal redistribution.

Yeah, right, moving on from professional dickheadeness then...

The middle classes have ever been disadvantaged by taxation, government policy and initiatives. God forbid any administration should do the first thing about it of course; they be lynched by the frothing hordes who seek to waste ever more money in public services and shiny, enticing adaptations of the self-same policies that fail in deprived areas generation after generation.
Myrmidonisia
14-03-2008, 22:49
I didn't pay a penny up-front to get my CDL. School was about 5 grand, but Swift (I don't mind naming my former employer, since I was one of 20,000 drivers at the time) covered $2,000 of it, and I paid back the rest at 300$/month afterward. Give them a call if you can't find anything better.

As for the agoraphobia, you'd have it made driving a truck. You can easily go six months at a time without exchanging a single word with another person, beyond truckstop cashiers, who don't ask you personal questions of course.
Aren't we experiencing a huge driver shortage in the U.S.? I'm wondering if starting a trucking company wouldn't be a very profitable venture right now.
Pepe Dominguez
14-03-2008, 23:05
Aren't we experiencing a huge driver shortage in the U.S.? I'm wondering if starting a trucking company wouldn't be a very profitable venture right now.

I'm not too sure, although it's probably true. Trucking companies can't just hire illegal immigrants like everyone else, which is a big disadvantage. That might change once the border comes down, in terms of Mexican trucks, but for now American companies have to hire American drivers for the most part, which is a losing proposition. I met a lot of drivers from Europe and the UK, but the overwhelming number are white Americans, who normally demand a living wage. The main thing that I can remember being a problem in the short-term was the huge turnover rate. Something like 1/3 of drivers with my old company didn't last a year OTR, or at least that's what I was told.
Tech-gnosis
14-03-2008, 23:30
Nope, but getting a huge tax increase is...

This tax hike in 2012 will cost money and jobs in EVERY Congressional district.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/budgetres09.htm

Average cost is about $3000 per family. Ya gotta love those Dems.

Since cutting taxes without cutting spending means higher future tax hikes ya gotta love the dems for keeping taxes from raising even higher in the future.

Ya gotta hate the Republicans for getting us into this shithole.
Khadgar
14-03-2008, 23:36
I didn't pay a penny up-front to get my CDL. School was about 5 grand, but Swift (I don't mind naming my former employer, since I was one of 20,000 drivers at the time) covered $2,000 of it, and I paid back the rest at 300$/month afterward. Give them a call if you can't find anything better.

As for the agoraphobia, you'd have it made driving a truck. You can easily go six months at a time without exchanging a single word with another person, beyond truckstop cashiers, who don't ask you personal questions of course.

Werner and other companies have similar policies. A big company like that is likely the only way you'll find employment with a newly minted CDL anyway. We can't hire with less than two years experience, insurance company won't allow it.
Pepe Dominguez
14-03-2008, 23:36
Since cutting taxes without cutting spending means higher future tax hikes ya gotta love the dems for keeping taxes from raising even higher in the future.

Ya gotta hate the Republicans for getting us into this shithole.

We're on schedule to pay off the defecit in the next five years, possibly even ahead of schedule, under the current tax rates. We don't need a tax hike to make that happen.
IL Ruffino
14-03-2008, 23:39
Link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSu1RI33g5jZfU8YAz7ZFmoPbb7AD8VCKT900)

So, Married Couples, low income workers, and people with children get tax cuts. However, those of us who are in middle class, don't have children, and aren't married get screwed over. Not to mention people who invest in business, and those who will get businesses and estate won't get tax cuts. Senator Mc. Cain supports the Bush's tax cut as it was, but Obama and Clinton wants to roll back for the group I just mentioned above.

It's strange, I thought Clinton and Obama cared about the Middle Class, and getting the USA economy back on track. Well you can't do that by taxing the business and investors.

That's just great, it really is.

So, nice generalizing title, and why not just get creative with deductions?
Tech-gnosis
14-03-2008, 23:40
We're on schedule to pay off the defecit in the next five years, possibly even ahead of schedule, under the current tax rates. We don't need a tax hike to make that happen.

You think congress wont increase speding in the future and will keep to the schedule?
Pepe Dominguez
14-03-2008, 23:44
You think congress wont increase speding in the future and will keep to the schedule?

The point is, we don't need a tax hike. Of course I don't trust Congress, but neither would I trust them with another 10% of my income. Why would they suddenly become more responsible if given more of our income? It doesn't add up.
Intangelon
14-03-2008, 23:47
The lower income group is more likely to buy commodities which do not contribute much to growth of the economy or pay off debts already owed, this is essentially money already paid in the economy. the other possiblity that could happen is that they would see a "free" source of money and over spend beyond the amount they are getting for "free". which may help the economy initially, will end up causing problems later on.

while middle income will also often see this as "free" money and overspend but being middle income they can recover from this much faster. some financialy intelligent will invest this money in the market in some form and that itself will help.

all in all short term fixes such as this dont do anything in the long run. if a politician was really trying to change the economy for the long haul they would push for finance teaching in school systems. a high school student should not graduate without first knowing essentially how to live in society this includes finance.

Which is bad for credit card companies and related banking industries, which pretty much nullifies the smaller segment of those receiving this election-year boondoggle who just might invest it. How much Microsoft stock does $300 get you?
Pepe Dominguez
14-03-2008, 23:47
Werner and other companies have similar policies. A big company like that is likely the only way you'll find employment with a newly minted CDL anyway. We can't hire with less than two years experience, insurance company won't allow it.

That's true. We were given a few companies to choose from, but for whatever reason, all of the dozen or so students I was with went with Swift, so I went the same way. Anyway, to leksicon: check your local 'employment guide' or whatever free jobs magazine your supermarket has. That's where to look. If you don't have a criminal record, you'll be fine. Actually, you can have a criminal record, so long as you don't have any recent drug-related arrests, if I remember right.
Intangelon
14-03-2008, 23:49
We're on schedule to pay off the defecit in the next five years, possibly even ahead of schedule, under the current tax rates. We don't need a tax hike to make that happen.

You mean the one that was already paid off when W came into office? And what of the national debt?
Tech-gnosis
14-03-2008, 23:50
The point is, we don't need a tax hike. Of course I don't trust Congress, but neither would I trust them with another 10% of my income. Why would they suddenly become more responsible if given more of our income? It doesn't add up.

They'll have have more money to pay for any increased expenditure. Thus less of a deficit. Why do you see them as being more responsible at current tax levels? If we get another Republican president then its likely we'll get even more into debt given the last 3 Republican Presidents.
Khadgar
14-03-2008, 23:51
Aren't we experiencing a huge driver shortage in the U.S.? I'm wondering if starting a trucking company wouldn't be a very profitable venture right now.

Fuel prices are running from $3.80 to $4 a gallon. Fuel surcharge, if you can get it, runs from $.30 a mile to $.50, average truck gets between 3-6mpg. Do the math. As fuel prices rise more and more companies go belly up. They can't sustain themselves. It's a horrible time to be in the trucking business.
Pepe Dominguez
14-03-2008, 23:56
You mean the one that was already paid off when W came into office? And what of the national debt?

I'm not a big fan of the massive war debt we've gotten into, but if we can pay it off without tax hikes, and are paying it off now, I don't see why we shouldn't. It isn't about 'W.' Keeping taxes where they are isn't an endorsement of his entire presidency, any more than keeping Kennedy's tax cuts in place was an endorsement of his when the Republicans left those alone.

They'll have have more money to pay for any increased expenditure. Thus less of a deficit. Why do you see them as being more responsible at current tax levels? If we get another Republican president then its likely we'll get even more into debt given the last 3 Republican Presidents.

I don't see Congress as being more reasonable at the current level. They won't be reasonable at any level.
Pepe Dominguez
14-03-2008, 23:59
Fuel prices are running from $3.80 to $4 a gallon. Fuel surcharge, if you can get it, runs from $.30 a mile to $.50, average truck gets between 3-6mpg. Do the math. As fuel prices rise more and more companies go belly up. They can't sustain themselves. It's a horrible time to be in the trucking business.

I got around 6-9mpg after Swift went all-Volvo for company drivers. But it's true that it's a bad time for trucking, unless you're specialized and purely o/o like many of the locals around here are.
Mad hatters in jeans
15-03-2008, 00:02
Just as well i'm not middle class, maybe one day i will then i can complain about being taxed so much, i'll just have to complain about being taxed too much as a lower class person eh?
prepare for change.
Aryavartha
15-03-2008, 00:09
Quit complaining people.

I have to file taxes in 3 states (recent multi-state taxation thingy) and for federal too and I am single...so won't be getting any benefits...and on top of that I am not a resident so I won't be getting any of the social security and medicare money I am paying for the rest of you..:mad:
Khadgar
15-03-2008, 00:11
I got around 6-9mpg after Swift went all-Volvo for company drivers. But it's true that it's a bad time for trucking, unless you're specialized and purely o/o like many of the locals around here are.

We don't have any volvos, but if they're hitting 9mpg we clearly ought to. What kind of engine?
Khadgar
15-03-2008, 00:12
Quit complaining people.

I have to file taxes in 3 states (recent multi-state taxation thingy) and for federal too and I am single...so won't be getting any benefits...and on top of that I am not a resident so I won't be getting any of the social security and medicare money I am paying for the rest of you..:mad:

No one under 30 will see social security, probably those under 40.
Sel Appa
15-03-2008, 00:14
Good.

Stop complaining about taxes and the economy. It's your own economic mismanagement and overreliance on credit cards and credit in general.
PelecanusQuicks
15-03-2008, 00:15
That doesn't say poorest. Would it be too cynical to suggest a fair proportion of those may be non-poor who know how to manipulate the system.

Yes it would just be cynical, not true though. People like to think that system can be manipulated to zero or a negative rate, but it can't. Can they reduce their taxes by a huge amount...sure...to zero or negative? Nope, not if they actually have an AGI that is in the taxable range. (Not unless they are low income in other words.)

I've been a tax accountant for 29 years, if it could be done I would be extremely wealthy from the billing I could have gotten from my clients. They would pay a lot for that kind of magic. ;)

Btw the AMT makes sure that middle and high incomes will never be reduced to zero or negative rates.
Pepe Dominguez
15-03-2008, 00:29
We don't have any volvos, but if they're hitting 9mpg we clearly ought to. What kind of engine?

Volvo's D12 or Cummins ISX, according to my search results:

http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/news/trucks_volvo_trucks_signs/

I'm basing 6-9mpg on what I was getting according to the Volvo's dash computer. It was a very noticable change from the Freightliner I started with, which got maybe 4-7. If I were a foot shorter, I'd be a huge fan of the Volvo, but seeing as I'm not, I don't have too much of a preference.
Pepe Dominguez
15-03-2008, 00:31
Good.

Stop complaining about taxes and the economy. It's your own economic mismanagement and overreliance on credit cards and credit in general.

You think that's what's responsible for the budget defecit? Okay...

I've never owned a credit card myself, so I won't comment on that.
Marrakech II
15-03-2008, 01:59
Actually 100% is giving everybody 100% of what they earn.
Then things wouldn't change much now would they. In general people are paid exactly what they are worth. You increase your worth by education or learning a new skill that is in demand. There are those that slip through mainly government employees but you get the gist.
The Black Forrest
15-03-2008, 02:47
Then things wouldn't change much now would they. In general people are paid exactly what they are worth. You increase your worth by education or learning a new skill that is in demand. There are those that slip through mainly government employees but you get the gist.

Do they now?

Did you read the recent bit about the wamu execs passing a rule that their bonus structure can't be penalized by the loan debacle?

People are not always paid what they are worth.

There are many cases were people are paid much more then they are worth.....
Knights of Liberty
15-03-2008, 03:03
Besides most of the lower class are people who are to lazy to work, but want the benefits of people who do.

Id bet everything I own that the working class (lower class, whatever you want to call it) work a damn site harder than most middle class people in jobs that would make most middle and upper class people cringe.
Marrakech II
15-03-2008, 06:12
Do they now?

Did you read the recent bit about the wamu execs passing a rule that their bonus structure can't be penalized by the loan debacle?

People are not always paid what they are worth.

There are many cases were people are paid much more then they are worth.....

Read carefully what I posted. I said in general which implies the majority but not everyone. As for those execs they should be shit canned by the stockholders.