Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49807529/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s no surprise that working couples in big cities are struggling to raise children while paying off mortgages and student debt. What is surprising is that they’re lumped in with the so-called “wealthy” if they jointly earn $250,000 a year.

The "fiscal cliff" has added a new sense of urgency to the tax hikes that President Obama plans to impose on America’s wealthiest citizens. Obama starts the meter at $250,000, and it goes up from there. The tax increases on high-income earners would deliver about $42 billion in 2013. They would create a small 0.1 percent drag on GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but their real cost might be much steeper.

Those tax increases aren’t the only ones that would kick in next year. In California, new tax propositions will create four new brackets for earners making $250,000 or more. Those taxpayers will see their state income taxes jump between 10.6 percent and 32.2 percent, depending on their bracket. Other states in fiscal straits could follow suit, and Republicans, among others, worry that soaking the rich could weigh on consumer spending and leave the entire economy under water.

Discretionary consumer spending is the engine that drives the U.S. economy. And high-income earners drive it more than middle- and low-income earners. Gallup’s daily tracking of consumer spending showed a dip last month among upper-income consumers — an average of $116 per day, down from $126 in September. If that dip continues into the holiday buying season, the economy could suffer a setback.

When will our Federal Government learn
We do not have a Tax Revenue problem
The present tax structure is fine - this nation brings in trainloads of revenue

We have a SPENDING problem / Not a Revenue Problem / Fuck...

Chizzang wrote:When will our Federal Government learn
We do not have a Tax Revenue problem
The present tax structure is fine - this nation brings in trainloads of revenue

We have a SPENDING problem / Not a Revenue Problem / Fuck...

This. Nothing like getting penalized for doing well - thankfully the government built all our businesses for us to work in and provide them a revenue stream.

ASUG8 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:When will our Federal Government learn
We do not have a Tax Revenue problem
The present tax structure is fine - this nation brings in trainloads of revenue

We have a SPENDING problem / Not a Revenue Problem / Fuck...

This. Nothing like getting penalized for doing well - thankfully the government built all our businesses for us to work in and provide them a revenue stream.

And frankly if thy'er trying to generate what amounts to $45 billion in additional revenue
Simply drop all F-22 Jet Fighter spending - zero dollars
It's never flown a combat mission (ever)

There's 50 billion right there - done... Next

So $250K is going to be considered rich for a married couple. What is the "rich" threshold for a single taxpayer going to be?

Between divorcing, losing my child credits, having the rental income on my old home taxed as investment income, not being able to deduct the hefty child support I shell out, etc... the last thing I need is to be considered "wealthy" by the magic one. I'm going to take an ass-pounding next April 15 as it stands already. I changed my W-2 exemptions from 8 to zero (max withholding) this year and the IRS calculator is telling me I'm still going to owe more. Like thousands more. Argh. Now I know why old, white men turn into Conks.

death dealer wrote:What is surprising is that they’re lumped in with the so-called “wealthy” if they jointly earn $250,000 a year.

Disappointing more than surprising IMO. Maybe $250,000 is wealthy in Omaha, NE but not around here.

Speaking of which... the government (FHA) has different thresholds for different areas... shouldn't the IRS?

Chizzang wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
This. Nothing like getting penalized for doing well - thankfully the government built all our businesses for us to work in and provide them a revenue stream.

And frankly if thy'er trying to generate what amounts to $45 billion in additional revenue
Simply drop all F-22 Jet Fighter spending - zero dollars
It's never flown a combat mission (ever)

There's 50 billion right there - done... Next

And this assumes that they will actually generate this much revenue from the increases. We know they won't because most of the "rich" will take steps to reduce their tax bite.


Saw this article last night that Spain increased taxes on theater tickets from 8% to 21%. The manager of one theater is selling carrots for $16 and it comes with a free theater ticket. The carrot price includes a 4% tax. So they've gone backwards 4% from where they were.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/1 ... t=1&f=1001

death dealer wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/id/49807529/

It’s no surprise that working couples in big cities are struggling to raise children while paying off mortgages and student debt. What is surprising is that they’re lumped in with the so-called “wealthy” if they jointly earn $250,000 a year.

The "fiscal cliff" has added a new sense of urgency to the tax hikes that President Obama plans to impose on America’s wealthiest citizens. Obama starts the meter at $250,000, and it goes up from there. The tax increases on high-income earners would deliver about $42 billion in 2013. They would create a small 0.1 percent drag on GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but their real cost might be much steeper.

Those tax increases aren’t the only ones that would kick in next year. In California, new tax propositions will create four new brackets for earners making $250,000 or more. Those taxpayers will see their state income taxes jump between 10.6 percent and 32.2 percent, depending on their bracket. Other states in fiscal straits could follow suit, and Republicans, among others, worry that soaking the rich could weigh on consumer spending and leave the entire economy under water.

Discretionary consumer spending is the engine that drives the U.S. economy. And high-income earners drive it more than middle- and low-income earners. Gallup’s daily tracking of consumer spending showed a dip last month among upper-income consumers — an average of $116 per day, down from $126 in September. If that dip continues into the holiday buying season, the economy could suffer a setback.

I'd like to see the evidence of that.

I'm ok with raising the number and cutting loopholes like deductions on second mortgages, corporate jets, etc.

Whine all about it you like Chizzang, the fact is we have chosen to fund a government to it's current level. You've got to raise taxes and cut spending to catch up. Historically, raising taxes has not led to economic decline or greater deficits...it typically helps with both.

kalm wrote: I'm ok with raising the number and cutting loopholes like deductions on second mortgages, corporate jets, etc.

Whine all about it you like Chizzang, the fact is we have chosen to fund a government to it's current level. You've got to raise taxes and cut spending to catch up. Historically, raising taxes has not led to economic decline or greater deficits...it typically helps with both.

Who's this "we" shit? You got a turd in your pocket?

The people who "chose" to fund the government to it's current levels coincidentally aren't the ones actually DOING the funding.

Gotta draw the line somewhere right???

But I agree, that raising revenue some is only a fraction of what needs to be done in Washington. There needs to be much more substantial work on spending in EVERY department. The GOP has to realize that the DOD budget is bloated as well, along with probably every other federal department.

No more "Drill baby drill", it's "cut baby cut". Maybe Mitt should've used that slogan?

bluehenbillk wrote:Gotta draw the line somewhere right???

But I agree, that raising revenue some is only a fraction of what needs to be done in Washington. There needs to be much more substantial work on spending in EVERY department. The GOP has to realize that the DOD budget is bloated as well, along with probably every other federal department.

No more "Drill baby drill", it's "cut baby cut". Maybe Mitt should've used that slogan?

Mitt gave me no indication he was going to "spend less"
He didn't in Massachusetts - in fact he spent more

Mitt was NOT the answer
Christie is probably THE answer - but the Christian Right Wing Nuts will lambaste him and he'll never get into office instead the Republican Party will deliver us something closer to the mental equivalent of michele bachmann


trust me on this

Chizzang wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Gotta draw the line somewhere right???

But I agree, that raising revenue some is only a fraction of what needs to be done in Washington. There needs to be much more substantial work on spending in EVERY department. The GOP has to realize that the DOD budget is bloated as well, along with probably every other federal department.

No more "Drill baby drill", it's "cut baby cut". Maybe Mitt should've used that slogan?

Mitt gave me no indication he was going to "spend less"
He didn't in Massachusetts - in fact he spent more

Mitt was NOT the answer
Christie is probably THE answer - but the Christian Right Wing Nuts will lambaste him and he'll never get into office instead the Republican Party will deliver us something closer to the mental equivalent of michele bachmann


trust me on this

Exactly. As much as I wanted to like the guy, he gave no indication that he was going to solve out spending problems.

As I recall from his campaign, he wanted to build more warships and cut spending on PBS. That didn't sound like a winning formula to me.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Mitt gave me no indication he was going to "spend less"
He didn't in Massachusetts - in fact he spent more

Mitt was NOT the answer
Christie is probably THE answer - but the Christian Right Wing Nuts will lambaste him and he'll never get into office instead the Republican Party will deliver us something closer to the mental equivalent of michele bachmann


trust me on this

Exactly. As much as I wanted to like the guy, he gave no indication that he was going to solve out spending problems.

As I recall from his campaign, he wanted to build more warships and cut spending on PBS. That didn't sound like a winning formula to me.

He was just pandering to his mouth-breathing, Rush-listening, flag-robe-wearing, conklodyte base.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote: I'm ok with raising the number and cutting loopholes like deductions on second mortgages, corporate jets, etc.

Whine all about it you like Chizzang, the fact is we have chosen to fund a government to it's current level. You've got to raise taxes and cut spending to catch up. Historically, raising taxes has not led to economic decline or greater deficits...it typically helps with both.

Who's this "we" shit? You got a turd in your pocket?

The people who "chose" to fund the government to it's current levels coincidentally aren't the ones actually DOING the funding.

If you voted Republican in the last decade you are also part of the "we".

Chizzang wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
This. Nothing like getting penalized for doing well - thankfully the government built all our businesses for us to work in and provide them a revenue stream.

And frankly if thy'er trying to generate what amounts to $45 billion in additional revenue
Simply drop all F-22 Jet Fighter spending - zero dollars
It's never flown a combat mission (ever)

There's 50 billion right there - done... Next

C'mon Cleets. You know why they wont. They won't cancel that for the same reason Congress told the Army to buy tanks it doesn't need. You cancel those programs, people lose thier jobs. Congress isn't going to take the hit for that.

Whine all about it you like Chizzang, the fact is we have chosen to fund a government to it's current level. You've got to raise taxes and cut spending to catch up. Historically, raising taxes has not led to economic decline or greater deficits...it typically helps with both

I doubt that's true with respect to deficits for sure. Just think about it. Think about going back in time to the beginning of this country or even the beginning of, say, he 20th century. Think about running a correlation between taxes and deficits. Overall you're going to get a significant positive correlation. Especially if you do it using tax revenue and not tax rates. In other words. the correlation analysis would show that, in general, as tax revenues have increases budget deficits have increased. Inflation adjusted terms of course. And that would be the case as well if you adjusted for population increase by using per capita tax revenue and also per capita deficit.

People who say what you said are selective about how they define taxes and how they define the period they look at. But if you just say look at the whole record you're going to see that both tax revenues and deficits have increased over time.

Now, that doesn't mean a direct cause and effect relationship. More likely the cause is the decision to have government do more than it should be doing. Likely that has led to both increased taxation and increased deficits.

But the statement that the problem is spending is valid. Until we get rid of the idea that government is responsible for taking care of every problem and making sure that we are each individually taken care of we are not going to solve the fiscal problem. And that means we are never going to solve the fiscal problem because we have a culture and population addicted to the notion that government is responsible for solving every problem and making sure that we are each individually taken care of. We think that if there is a problem that is prima facie evidence that government should fix it. If we don't have food its government's responsibility to make sure that we get it. If we don't have a job. If we don't have housing. If we don't have health care. So on and so forth.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Whine all about it you like Chizzang, the fact is we have chosen to fund a government to it's current level. You've got to raise taxes and cut spending to catch up. Historically, raising taxes has not led to economic decline or greater deficits...it typically helps with both

I doubt that's true with respect to deficits for sure. Just think about it. Think about going back in time to the beginning of this country or even the beginning of, say, he 20th century. Think about running a correlation between taxes and deficits. Overall you're going to get a significant positive correlation. Especially if you do it using tax revenue and not tax rates. In other words. the correlation analysis would show that, in general, as tax revenues have increases budget deficits have increased. Inflation adjusted terms of course. And that would be the case as well if you adjusted for population increase by using per capita tax revenue and also per capita deficit.

People who say what you said are selective about how they define taxes and how they define the period they look at. But if you just say look at the whole record you're going to see that both taxes and deficits have increased over time.

Now, that doesn't mean a direct cause and effect relationship. More likely the cause is the decision to have government do more than it should be doing. Likely that has led to both increased taxation and increased deficits.

But the statement that the problem is spending is valid. Until we get rid of the idea that government is responsible for taking care of every problem and making sure that we are each individually taken care of we are n ot going to solve the fiscal problem. And that means we are never going to solve the fiscal problem because we have a culture and population addicted to the notion that government is responsible for solving every problem and making sure that we are each individually taken care of. We think that if there is a problem that is prima facie evidence that government should fix it. If we don't have food its government's responsibility to make sure that we get it. If we don't have a job. If we don't have housing. If we don't have health care. So on and so forth.

Not quite catching your drift...please expand on it...with statistical analysis and such...

Ibanez wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
And frankly if thy'er trying to generate what amounts to $45 billion in additional revenue
Simply drop all F-22 Jet Fighter spending - zero dollars
It's never flown a combat mission (ever)

There's 50 billion right there - done... Next

C'mon Cleets. You know why they wont. They won't cancel that for the same reason Congress told the Army to buy tanks it doesn't need. You cancel those programs, people lose thier jobs. Congress isn't going to take the hit for that.

bingo...!!!
We're a full blown Military Industrial complex
We can't stop spending on the military - The Pentagon has become a 700 billion dollar active pension program - or the largest welfare program yet (depends on how you look at it)

we get what we deserve

We'll need another war for Exxon Mobile and Halliburton here in a few years too..!!!

Chizzang wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
C'mon Cleets. You know why they wont. They won't cancel that for the same reason Congress told the Army to buy tanks it doesn't need. You cancel those programs, people lose thier jobs. Congress isn't going to take the hit for that.

bingo...!!!
We're a full blown Military Industrial complex
We can't stop spending on the military - The Pentagon has become a 700 billion dollar active pension program - or the largest welfare program yet (depends on how you look at it)

we get what we deserve

We'll need another war for Exxon Mobile and Halliburton here in a few years too..!!!

While not military, just don't stop pumping these bitches out. One of the greatest paint jobs on a plane.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAwWAwx3ag4[/youtube]

SeattleGriz wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
bingo...!!!
We're a full blown Military Industrial complex
We can't stop spending on the military - The Pentagon has become a 700 billion dollar active pension program - or the largest welfare program yet (depends on how you look at it)

we get what we deserve

We'll need another war for Exxon Mobile and Halliburton here in a few years too..!!!

While not military, just don't stop pumping these bitches out. One of the greatest paint jobs on a plane.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAwWAwx3ag4[/youtube]

I thought you were a paper shuffler at Boeing
I had no idea you were pulling aircraft paint shifts too

Chizzang wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Gotta draw the line somewhere right???

But I agree, that raising revenue some is only a fraction of what needs to be done in Washington. There needs to be much more substantial work on spending in EVERY department. The GOP has to realize that the DOD budget is bloated as well, along with probably every other federal department.

No more "Drill baby drill", it's "cut baby cut". Maybe Mitt should've used that slogan?

Mitt gave me no indication he was going to "spend less"
He didn't in Massachusetts - in fact he spent more

Mitt was NOT the answer
Christie is probably THE answer - but the Christian Right Wing Nuts will lambaste him and he'll never get into office instead the Republican Party will deliver us something closer to the mental equivalent of michele bachmann


trust me on this

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but:

I believe you are correct.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Who's this "we" shit? You got a turd in your pocket?

The people who "chose" to fund the government to it's current levels coincidentally aren't the ones actually DOING the funding.

If you voted Republican in the last decade you are also part of the "we".

The difference is, we who voted republican in '00 and '04 did so with the HOPE that they'd see the light and do what fiscal conservatives SHOULD do. Those who voted donk in '08 and '12 do so with the full KNOWLEDGE that we're writing checks that will bounce and they don't give a flying fuck, because THEY aren't the ones the government is going to go to in a failed attempt to balance that checkbook.

I'd be willing to bet you'll see that $250k threshold go up as part of the compromise with Boehner.

You can raise that pretty far before you see a huge decline in revenue.

I suspect it will end up in the $350-400k range.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
bingo...!!!
We're a full blown Military Industrial complex
We can't stop spending on the military - The Pentagon has become a 700 billion dollar active pension program - or the largest welfare program yet (depends on how you look at it)

we get what we deserve

We'll need another war for Exxon Mobile and Halliburton here in a few years too..!!!

While not military, just don't stop pumping these bitches out. One of the greatest paint jobs on a plane.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAwWAwx3ag4[/youtube]

Wow, that's much bigger than the Maaco across the street from my office.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
If you voted Republican in the last decade you are also part of the "we".

The difference is, we who voted republican in '00 and '04 did so with the HOPE that they'd see the light and do what fiscal conservatives SHOULD do. Those who voted donk in '08 and '12 do so with the full KNOWLEDGE that we're writing checks that will bounce and they don't give a flying ****, because THEY aren't the ones the government is going to go to in a failed attempt to balance that checkbook.

There's that word again...