I still don't get that use of "mainstream" from fox. So let me get this straight, you're the news channel with the highest ratings in the country, but you aren't mainstream?

So just when exactly does the outsider become the mainstream?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...46f_print.html

Taxes are raised and America is saved, right?

I do feel it's basically the same crap all over again, except incrementally worse. And hey, they screwed the Hurricane Sandy victims, denying them relief that could not only help them but could get the economy kicking some more.

It is a good compromise - $250k was just too low without taking into any cost of living adjustments but even in the super-expensive areas around here you are killing it if you are making $400k.

It's good to know that our nation's Motor Sports arenas are safe for another two years.

Keep up the people's work, Congress.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by Javery It is a good compromise - $250k was just too low without taking into any cost of living adjustments but even in the super-expensive areas around here you are killing it if you are making $400k.

Should taxes only go up on those who are "killing it"? How do we measure "killing it"?

Alternatively, what kind of substantive financial burdens would be imposed by raising taxes on those making $250,000 per year? What have we avoided in terms of economic impact (on the individual tax payer) by raising the threshold?

Originally Posted by mykevermin Should taxes only go up on those who are "killing it"? How do we measure "killing it"? Alternatively, what kind of substantive financial burdens would be imposed by raising taxes on those making $250,000 per year? What have we avoided in terms of economic impact (on the individual tax payer) by raising the threshold?

You read Javery's post in a much different way than I did. I figured he picked $250,000 as being "too low" because then it would have affected him, whereas $400,000 won't...

Maserati class = "killing it."

Fully optioned Volkswagen CC class = "scraping by."

I guess that's the logic.

EDIT: But I do want to better understand what sorts of expenditures $250K earners would no longer be able to afford if their tax cuts expired.

How the hell did even this "emergency" legislation get loaded up with special interest bull crap? Our government is waaay corrupt and deceitful. I wouldn't trust most of these guys with a year's contribution to my IRA, let alone my kid's future.

I love the "let's stick it to the rich who pay 70% of all federal taxes already" mantra while, yet again, I helped a 23 year old lady living in subsidized housing deliver her 4th baby last night. How much do you want to bet that she gets a tax "refund" along with her TANF, food stamps, and medical aid coverage this year?

How swell is it that now that a bill has passed, instead of actually discussing the bill that passed, "the usual suspects" are trying their best to derail the thread into anything but discussion of the final bill?

Sweet.

To be fair though, if the idiots I've been cheerleading for over the past while had pushed this bill through, I'd be trying to avoid discussing it as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...al-cliff-deal/

1. A $9 billion “sop for Wall Street banks and major multinationals” [...] 3. Cheaper office space for Goldman Sachs [...] 5. Treat coal from Indian lands as an “alternative energy source” [...] 8. Subsidize Hollywood films

Doin' the people's work.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13648...sney-to-nascar

I like this one the best:

4) Help a brother mining company out – Sec. 307 and Sec. 316 offer tax incentives for miners to buy safety equipment and train their employees on mine safety. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to bribe mining companies to not kill their workers.

Originally Posted by Javery It is a good compromise - $250k was just too low without taking into any cost of living adjustments but even in the super-expensive areas around here you are killing it if you are making $400k.

I figured that bumping it up from 250K to 400K was to protect small business job creators, and I think it's a load of crap.

If we're going to give breaks for job creators, we should make them have to prove that they are creating jobs.

How many jobs have you created Javery?

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13...cal-cliff-deal

Who won in the fiscal cliff deal? The lawyers won. Well, not just the lawyers. The lawyers, the doctors, the dentists, the middle managers, the advertising executives, the whole MBA crowd. [...] The fiscal cliff deal is not a bad deal. But it’s not a progressive deal. It’s a deal for the comfortable, not a deal for the struggling and the poor. Those of us with good jobs and advanced degrees can be satisfied. For the 80% of Americans who don’t, it’s just more bad news.

Just doin' the people's work.

So, we got no significant spending cuts and the 'evil rich' still made out like bandits. That whole "Compromise: where both sides don't get what they want" thing seems to play here real well.

Originally Posted by RedvsBlue You read Javery's post in a much different way than I did. I figured he picked $250,000 as being "too low" because then it would have affected him, whereas $400,000 won't...

Of course! It is OK to set the bar at whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect me.

Originally Posted by mykevermin EDIT: But I do want to better understand what sorts of expenditures $250K earners would no longer be able to afford if their tax cuts expired.

I don't know how other people spend their money but co-workers and friends were concerned with mortgage payments, after school-care payments for the kids, college tuition, saving for retirement and things like that - nothing really to do with fancy cars or vacations or electronics but it would affect things that have been budgeted based on the current system. Could they "survive" on a tighter budget? Of course. Should they have to? I guess that's the argument.

Originally Posted by camoor How many jobs have you created Javery?

Who claimed that I am creating jobs? I'm not sure what is so confusing about my position on this - I want more money in my pocket and less money not in my pocket.

Originally Posted by Javery Who claimed that I am creating jobs? I'm not sure what is so confusing about my position on this - I want more money in my pocket and less money not in my pocket.

Right that's why the narrative of job creators - and raising the bar on this bill - is bullshit.

I like any bill that increases taxes on the rich - but we can do better.

Originally Posted by Javery Should they have to?

Yep.

Maybe we could juxtapose the list of items you've overheard being discussed versus egofed's poverty-shaming the past few days and think about that for a moment w/r/t taxation and spending.

Originally Posted by mykevermin Yep. Maybe we could juxtapose the list of items you've overheard being discussed versus egofed's poverty-shaming the past few days and think about that for a moment w/r/t taxation and spending.

If only these people had any shame. I wish I could call em out and not get fired. How can you defend someone who is willing to bring more lives into such a crappy cycle of "mooching" just to pad their wallets a little more?

Hey, shouldn't you be busy defending a company who wishes to reduce access to birth control?

Originally Posted by mykevermin Yep.

So they should also be forced to uproot their families and move somewhere cheaper? Why does no one take cost of living into consideration when throwing out arbitrary numbers? Just look at this (I picked a random state in the mid-west and this is the first city that came up). Housing is 82% LESS!!!

Originally Posted by Javery Who claimed that I am creating jobs? I'm not sure what is so confusing about my position on this - I want more money in my pocket and less money not in my pocket.

If you kept your argument strictly to this, you wouldn't get half the grief you get for saying shit like this, especially the bolded part:

I don't know how other people spend their money but co-workers and friends were concerned with mortgage payments, after school-care payments for the kids, college tuition, saving for retirement and things like that - nothing really to do with fancy cars or vacations or electronics but it would affect things that have been budgeted based on the current system. Could they "survive" on a tighter budget? Of course. Should they have to? I guess that's the argument.

If I alone, were making $300k a year, I could live almost anywhere I want in Boston metro while doing all the bullshit that you do with your money and Boston has some of the most expensive real estate in the country...I could live smack dab in the middle of it. In matter of fact, I know people that do.

I don't remember if you mentioned if you grew up poor, but you don't really have a realistic or healthy perspective on what luxury is anymore. That list of things you gave? A vast majority of the population doesn't have access to that and it's partially because of the mantra that you parrot about taxes...a good part of it actually. Sorry (well not really), but a guy making $300k that bitches about paying another $5k(1.6%) in taxes can go off while whining about his expenses living in a high COL neighborhood.

Why don't people think of the HENRY's?? Q_Q

Honestly, I wouldn't even give that much of a shit if you thought that others that put in an honest 40 a week should have a taste of that stuff, but no, it's all about your socio-economic peers. This is exactly why it rings hallow as when you say that you're no better off than some blue collar worker if something bad happens like a serious medical condition. I might disagree with everything you say, but I could at least respect honesty. Although, that " you; got mine" reply you gave camoor is as honest you've been about it in recent memory, so good for you.

Making a hair under $100K per year in the midwest is not going to get you any sympathy from me, if that's the sort of thing you're aiming for.