Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT: Senate Dems seek one-year 'pause' in sequestration cuts as part of deal (164 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Um, $250k to $400k isn't wealthy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beetwasher

    It's far more than most, but we're talking about very little revenue here.

    •  We're talking (9+ / 0-)

      a lot of revenue.

      Ezra says this deal only gets 600 billion, as opposed to PResident's opening offer of 1.6 Triliion.

      •  Well, what did they give up $200B for? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beetwasher

        That's the question.

        But it's foolish to pick $250,000 as your hill to die on when the answer is $400,000.

        •  $250k was the opening bid, not the goal. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emal

          $100k to $200k = 11.3% of taxpayers
          $200k to $300k = 3.5% of taxpayers

          There's a difference between the two brackets.

          50% of taxpayers who earn between $100K-$200K pay the majority of their income tax as payroll taxes (source).

          That percentage ranges from 60% to 80% in the lower brackets, in the $200K-$300K range it drops dramatically to 8%.

          This is the lowest bracket of highly compensated professionals who earn income as fees or corporate draws, partners who share year-end profits, CEO bonuses, and individuals who have substantial unearned (investment) income.

          Have you noticed?
          Politicians who promise LESS government
          only deliver BAD government.

          by jjohnjj on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:30:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not responsive (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure I have a problem with the 400k if it is tied to real positives.

          I think you can get more real positives on the other side of the cliff.

          But my poiint was this is real money.

          You can't pretend it is not.

          And your 2300B number is worng.

          The difference was a trillion.

        •  How did those poor poor wealthy people (0+ / 0-)

          Ever struggle to survive when their rates were at Clinton Era levels.

          Sorry no sympathy from me. I am wiling to have my rates go up by jumping over this cliff and yes it will be tighter for my family who makes less that that, but fer chris sakes I am not willing to protect those who can afford it any longer.

          Since when is 400,000 considered middle class?

          What happened to, I will veto any tax cuts for those over 250,000?

          Line is drawn for me in the sand. I am done giving tax breaks to those who those making that kind of money any longer.

          The Plutocratic States of America, the best government the top 1% and corporations can buy. We are the 99%-OWS.

          by emal on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:43:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well...when you're supporting a family (0+ / 0-)

      on less than 100K a year, it looks wealthy enough to be taxed at Clinton levels.

      We're all talking like Clinton tax levels are 60-80% or something. It's worth remembering that they're only, what is it, 39%?

      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:14:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (80)
  • Baltimore (79)
  • Freddie Gray (58)
  • Bernie Sanders (55)
  • Civil Rights (47)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (35)
  • Media (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (28)
  • Education (24)
  • Environment (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (22)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site