Welcome to PatsFans.com

What's the Income Floor that Rangel Should Raise Taxes On ?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by BelichickFan, Oct 25, 2007.

?

Who Should Have their Taxes Raised

  1. Over 50K

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Over 100K

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  3. Over 250K

    2 vote(s)
    28.6%
  4. Over 500K

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  5. Over $1M

    3 vote(s)
    42.9%
  1. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/N...CQDJON200710242253DOWJONESDJONLINE001107.htm&

    He's proposing a 4% increase for those over $200K (married), $150K (single).

    What should it be ? For my poll, I will put a number for Married, it would be half for Single. It should be doubled for Married as they are far more likely to have high daycare costs if there's two working people, as there usually are.

    Remember - this is Federal so it goes for everyone. $200K is a lot where I live. It's a lot less in NY, Boston or Chicago. It won't hit me at this rate, my household income is below the threshold but I'm curious.

    edit - there's no "no-one" option. Rangel's raising taxes, that's not an option.
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2007
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I voted for $1M. $200K is nuts. That would be great money for me, living in a sh!thole town like I do. But for a family with kids and daycare, increasing taxes by 4% for money over $200K is terrible in real cities.
  3. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -1

    Where's the "no one" option? This country taxes enough.
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Rangel running H W&M - Dems with both Houses and soon the Presidency - why do you think I left "no one" off the list of options ? :rolleyes:

    :bricks:
  5. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    agreed.... it's not about how much tax, it's more about how the tax revenue is spent...

    still, if we're gonna waste $2.4 trillion on foreign occupations, i'm more than content making the elite pay for most of it... they wanted it... and they're not fighting it... they should do SOMETHING...
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2007
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    I chose $250k, but considered $500k because in some urban areas even $500k may not be a fortune (though it's damn good). I'm assuming $250k for a family of 4, and I do think that any tax increase should be graduated, with people earning over $1 million obviously paying more than those earning $250k.
  7. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I voted for $1 million. This bill isnt going anywhere thought and it shouldnt. Raising taxes is not the issue, controlling spending is.
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Damn!
    Beat me to it.
  9. fleabassist1

    fleabassist1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,102
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I was wondering the same thing :D
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Americans have become accustomed to more taxes so much that they don't consider the option of no more increases...just how much and who will get the increase. Just like we 've become mindfu-ked into being afraid all the time and that computers, the government anad television are our friends, Americans will buy into everything as long as they perceive that it's the "in" thing. Soon, the "in" thing becomes integrated into the culture.
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Why does the grinning bastard want taxes raised in the first place, you already work the first two or three months of the year for the government

    Imagime all the birth control pills and condoms they can buy with scumbag Rangles Tax Hike

    Democrats come right out an tell you they are going to steal some more money from you and your family then the dip sh!t democrat loons crawl on their hands and knees to the polls and vote the bastards back in

    Cut Taxes
    Give The Country Back To The People
    The Hell With The Pills Sterilize The 11 Year Old Whores.
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I'm the last person who wants taxes to be raised. But when Billary is in charge and has Democrat led Houses, we know what's going to happen. There is NO WAY taxes aren't going up on the "rich"; however you choose to define that.
  13. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    On a general level I figure the nation's spent a large fortune over the last 7 years and we should all pay. Sure not everyone agreed with the actions that put us here; but the American system was followed and that means we're now all in the same boat. The only incorrigible thing is the idea that the money spent doesn't need to be paid back by those who spent it. Call me old-fashioned; but I figure those that make the mess should be the ones who clean it up.
  14. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    yay, let's make up stuff again!!

    closer to reality: Mrs. Clinton will likely not raise taxes and instead reconfigure federal spending away from the endless occupation of foreign nations... i mean, i know that will make you equally as angry, but at least it's accurate...
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Think we have enough taxes, particularly as the federal reductions have lead to state and local increases, my vote is to do away with the whole system, control spending on a national level and look at alternatives such as a national sales tax, or the Steve Forbes thing.. anything is better than what we do now.. all we are doing is perpetuating an archaic bureaucracy.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2007
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Rangel's tax plan is actually quite responsible:

    http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/25/pf/taxes/rangel_tax_reform/index.htm?postversion=2007102515

    My main issue with it is why not start the surtax at a higher level than $200k and have a graduated surtax so that those with $1 million in income pay a higher rate than those wikth a $500k income? Also, let's keep the death tax in some form. (I'm not sure what his plans are for that.)

    I don't see how flat taxes and other tax systems do away with the IRS. You still have to have an agency making sure taxes are paid. Even with with a national sales tax, a new IRS would affect everyone who sells taxable services or goods.

    As far as cutting government, it's a nice idea, but we need specifics. Even ending he Iraq war would probably only help us balance the budget, not cut taxes.
  17. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    They might not do away with it, but the agency could certainly be downsized to something more manageable.. that in itself would decrease the cost of federal gov't.

    Cutting the Gov't spending would take some very innovative ideas, here is one why do we have three main branches of the military all doing similar R & D, and all justifying what they do. Wouldn't it make sense to coordinate some of this stuff, for example are the needs of the Marines and Army all that different, many would say they are, but in reality they are very close. Hear this all of the time that the needs of the air force are different from the Navy, make the providers be adaptable get the same system, but make it work for each branch.. The Dept. of Homeland is one of the biggest money wasters, look at ways to downsize and make them more efficient, more time is spent on doing the politically correct thing and not ruffling feathers.. the status quo is not working, time to think outside of the box.. I have alot of ideas who they and the state could downsize, gov't has gotten to big and too paternal, all the while non-profits who provide many of the services are suffering.
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    When I lived in Denmark, my tax form arrived already completed. All I had to do was sign it. I think if we simplify the tax code, the IRS could be far more manageable. When I lived in Norway, my income tax was cut in half in December (the idea being that is was gift-giving season) and there was no tax in June (since most Norwegians took vacation in July). I think those steps went a long way towards humanizing the tax code.

    I don't know enough about the reasons for the different branches of the military to have an opinion on this, but commonsense would suggest that it could be downsized. In fact, when I worked for a major consulting company years ago my boss was Republican and an exMarine who believed strongly that the military was retaining to much high-level technical talent that was creating problems for private enterprise.

    I also think that, though we don't like to admit it, federal jobs and aid (or pork barrel spending) play a role in managing the economy and developing different areas of the country. Perhaps more of this could be outsourced to private companies, which I have nothing against provided it's adequately regulated, but that wouldn't necessarily decrease our tax bill. In fact, it might increase it. While private enterprise is more efficient, it doesn't always cost less, I think.
  19. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    When Granola eating whacko's hole themselves up in a cabin out in the woods somewhere and refuse to pay taxes and the government surrounds their shack with armed storm troopers, FBI and News Media the looney liberal democrats are cheering the tax evaders on and yelling all their "freedom sh!t" then when a looney liberal democrat raises the taxes even higher the rest of the looney liberal democrats kiss his ring and say what a wonderful thing it is that he is doing, these are the same f-cking a$s holes that were cheering for the tax evaders who claim to have a constitutional right to be "Free Loaders".

    The liberal democrat loons gush and fawn over the democrat politician that raises taxes

    The liberal democrat loons then stand up, cheer, whistle and applaud when some some smelly coke sniffing weirdos refuse to pay those taxes that a scumbag like Rangle just raised :confused:

    They want higher taxes then support people that won't pay them :singing:
  20. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    So the Democrats want to take 44% of the income of the upper middle class. Once again, Rangel rages another stupid class warfare debate. How much is enough for these people? Once again, the governemtn trying to tell you WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, HOW YOU SHOULD LIVE!!!!!

    Either switch to a flat tax rate for EVERYONE (what could be more fair than everyone in America paying the same rate?), or a national sales tax.

    Eliminate the government welfare of the earned income credit, and all those stupid earmark tax credits (hybrid cars, and such).

    Funny how his tax raise doesn't reach to the income of say, A CONGRESSMAN. If Rangel wants to be fair, shouldn't the highest tax rate start at Rangels's pay ($165,200) instead of $200,000.

    What a great idea for the Democrat platform for the upcoming election, we want to implement the LARGEST TAX INCREASE, EVER, grant anmesty for 30 million illegal aliens, lose the war on terror, and put the most disingenious woman every concieved as President!
  21. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    What everyone fails to realize when the talk about taxing the RICH, is that these are INCOME TAXES!!!

    Not taxes on inheritance, or tax shelters, or stocks, etc. The Kerrys of the world will still pay way less taxes percentage wise than the rest of us. Their entire exsistance depends on maniupluating the tax code to shield their money.
  22. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    That's not true. I was asking why we're so patient with tax evaders, and move so much more aggressively against other people who don't pose a threat. For instance, the police won't camp out for month waiting for a drug dealer to give himself up. The police go right in. But, with wealthy tax evaders (who are usually white), the police will wait months before taking action.

    Well, if the tax increase goes towards national health care, improving our schools, taking care of our elderly, fixing our infrastructure, etc., yeah, a lot of liberals are happy. (On the other hand, conservatives seem thoroughly content whether it's Reagan or Bush borrowing billions of $ from the Chinese and Saudis so that we can pay them high interest and fund wars that we cannot otherwise afford.)

    No, you really have it wrong. There are a few left-wing anarchist types who have that anti-authority attitude, but not liberals.

    Only if it's for something we believe in.

    No, taxes have to be paid. Liberals believe that more strongly than do conservatives.

    No, we believe that by making society fairer, we make it safer and nicer for all of us.
  23. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    I did mention that I favor the death tax, and will also add, favor all efforts to close loopholes for the wealthy, including loopholes whereby they invest money overseas or set up fake foundations. If we targeted acquired wealth, we could probably lower taxes, but you are right, the Kerry's (actually Heinz's) of the world and other super-rich people have much too much power (regardless of party).
  24. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Not sure I agree with that, I think she's talking about a cut and run strategy now to get the nomination, but her votes and rhetoric in the past suggests to me that a President Hillary wouldn't be as quick to pull out of Iraq as you might think. Plus, even if she does draw down troop levels, I thought she was talking about a redeployment away from dangerous areas, but still have a large number of troops in the region, which will still cost a hugh amount of money. Add to that the money we give to the Iraqi gov't that won't be going away and I don't think we'll be saving much $ even when Bush is gone. I do agree though that she is likely to have a moderate tax policy that won't include a big increase if any on our tax burden.
  25. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Points to ponder on Rangel's Tax Plan.

    The Alternative Minimum Tax.

    This system was created in 1969 to prevent those with higher incomes from claiming so many itemized deductions that they were actually paying less in taxes than some lower income families. The problem with the law as written is that congress never indexed it to inflation so as years went by more and more households have been effected by the AMT. Dept. of Treasury statistics show that if left as it is, over 1 in 4 households that earn between $75,000 and $100,000 will fall victim to the AMT by the year 2010. Congress has, on an annual basis, simply raised the threshold of the AMT thereby saving millions of Americans a year from having to pay the AMT while at the same time never raising taxes in other areas. The theory behind raising the threshold and not raising taxes in other areas to make up for the difference is that congress has recognized that it was never the intent of AMT legislation to tax such middle incomes and therefore those taxes were never meant to be collected. Rangel's plan ignores that fact, and instead proposes raising the "lost" taxes by adding surcharges to higher incomes, the majority of which belong to small business owners who are already facing issues in a volatile economy. I propose that congress enact real reform to fix the flaws in the AMT. The simplest fix that seems to evade congress is to just permantly raise the threshold to $1 Million and index it to inflation thereby sparing our small business owners.

    Tax Credits For Low Income Households.

    Rangel's plan would enable more low income households to be eligible for Earned Income Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits. I have no problem with legislation that enables more low income households to avoid paying income tax. What I do have a problem with is legislation that would allow some families to receive refunds that are in excess of the total income taxes they have paid. One needs to question whether Rangel's goal here is Tax Reform or Welfare Reform.

    Is Rangel's Idea of the Rich really Rich?

    Rangels' plan proposes a 4% surcharge on married filers with Adjustable Gross Incomes of $200,000. Keep in mind that Adjustable Gross Incomes are incomes before any itemized deductions are included. Rangels' surcharge would kick in before households were allowed to exclude such common deductions as local and state taxes, education expenses, charitable contributions or mortgage interest paid. With the upheaval in the housing market and the increases in college tuition now is not the time to set road blocks for families that want to own their own house and send their children to college. It is particularly not a good idea that the very families that this surcharge targets are the very same families that own small businesses that provide a vital part to our nation's economy.
  26. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    You know who should be taxed more, POLITICIANS!!!

    I say heap a 50% tax on all political contributions. This way we will all be subject to less lies on the TV, and those who wish to buy thier way into the politicians favor, will at least have to give half of their influence peddling money back to the American people!

    Of course, the chances of Congress passing this is 0-354.
  27. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    That's a really good idea! Even make it a progressive tax, so that the more you give the more tax you pay.
  28. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Wow!
    I love that idea! Fu-kin ay!
  29. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -1

    If that is supposed to mean that she'll pull troops out should she be elected, you're crazy. No one who is elected in 2008 is going to completely withdraw troops. Trust me on that.

    BTW, the endless occupation she voted for.
  30. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -1

    States have never seen more federal green than under any other administration in our history. Not only have states recieved record amounts of federal aide under Bush, but they're so grossly mismanaged and inefficient, that the federal aide isn't enough. As the fed aide has increased, so hasn't the state dependency on it. Federal and state governments are broken.

Share This Page