Bad News If You Make $150,000 to $300,000: Higher Taxes for Many (wsj.com) 483
From a WSJ report: If President Donald Trump sticks to what he has said, Americans earning between $149,400 and $307,900 are most likely to see an increase in their taxes as a result of tax reform (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled). Those figures come from a recent study by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group in Washington, and are based on Mr. Trump's statements and proposals. The study concludes that nearly one-third of about 19 million households in that income range could see tax increases averaging from $3,000 to $4,000 a year. By contrast, less than 10% of households earning the least or the most -- below $25,000 or above $733,000 -- would owe more after a tax overhaul. Over all, the study found that about 20% of taxpayers would owe more after tax reform than before it. The issue of tax reform's winners and losers has resurfaced after top congressional Republicans and the Trump administration released a set of broad principles for tax policy on Thursday containing few details.
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
You all voted for conservative politicians in the States who ran on cut now pay later starting with Reagan and vodoo economics.
Later is here! No it is not Obama's fault. It is yours and your parents. The banks need their money and it is not fair for the rest of us to pay higher taxes and no services for things like healthcare. Pay the piper man and in 30 years we can pay off the interest and $19,000,000,000,000!
Oh and lets blame it on the liberals so you can keep your nice home? Well expect a dollar crash and Great Depression 2.0 as the value of the dollar is nothing because the credit built on a house of cards for tax cuts and spending increases comes crashing once bankers start demanding a return on their money.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
In short: Yes.
In a little longer, you accurately identified the two groups that are actually the biggest supporters. Redneck hicks who fell for the MAGA, and rich people who knew what to expect from the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
You should ask two separate questions - one about his supporters, one about his controllers.
Re: About time (Score:4, Informative)
This is a story about raising taxes on the wealthy. Which is the Democratic Party position. So in fact the 60 million "dirt poor" that voted for Trump would be helped.
Do you see how your bullshit post just fell apart?
It is the Democratic position as a rich man only needs to buy how many toasters to boost the economy. You tax the poor folks and they stop spending which causes employers to cut jobs which then cuts from sales taxes.
Re: About time (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is a story about raising taxes on the middle class, and it's notably not a story about cutting them on the lower classes. It's a story about cutting them on the wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is a story about raising taxes on the middle class,
Are things so bad now in the US that an income of $150,000 is middle class. I mean I haven't checked the exchange rate since this morning but at the time US$150,000 was around £115,000. Over here you stop being middle class around £80,000.
I'm middle income, middle class, if I earned £115,000, I'd have a house paid off within 5-8 years.
Make no mistake, this is a tax on the wealthy, not the ultra rich like Trump, but those who have a very good income. This is emphatically not an attack
Re: (Score:2)
Re: About time (Score:5, Informative)
Middle class isn't a function purely of wage in the US, since income, and cost of living varies wildly across the country.
In the UK, someone earning £80,000 is pretty much going to be well off whether they're living in Dundee, or London - though they're going to be more well off in Dundee.
In the US, someone earning $150,000 will be very well off if they live in Birmingham, but be pretty badly off if they live in the SF bay area (which is likely, because that's where all the jobs that pay $150-300k are).
Re: (Score:2)
This is a story about raising taxes on the wealthy. Which is the Democratic Party position. So in fact the 60 million "dirt poor" that voted for Trump would be helped.
Do you see how your bullshit post just fell apart?
This is a story about raising taxes on the upper middle class to enable tax breaks for the wealthy. But the dirt poor are hurt the worst by Trump's policies since he is so keen on cutting programs which benefit them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this appears to be a story about raising taxes on the upper middle class. The wealthy appear to get away without any significant tax increases.
Re: About time (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a tax on the wealthy that are not quite wealthy enough to buy politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a tax on the wealthy that are not quite wealthy enough to buy politicians.
That would be one of several major distinctions between being merely a little rich and being actually wealthy.
Rich people own expensive shoes. Wealthy people own the company that sells expensive shoes (as a frickin' hobby [ivankatrump.com]).
Rich people own expensive cars. Wealthy people own a controlling interest in the company that sells expensive cars.
Rich people own expensive houses. Wealthy people own the expensive office space being leased by megacorporations.
Rich people own iPhones encrusted in gold and diamonds. W
Fake high salaries (Score:5, Interesting)
As a higher earner (well, when I'm not in startup mode), I don't actually have a problem with being taxed more - provided those that earn even more than me are not able to avoid the tax. The thing is, once you earn over about $100k, pretty much all your extra money is just going into bidding up the prices of a limited pool of assets such as housing. This doesn't benefit you or your fellow high earners, because if we can't build more, say, London housing when a rickety Victorian hovel costs over $1 million, then bidding up the prices to even more ridiculous levels isn't going to deal with the fundamental supply issue. All that happens is a parasite class forms around these things, consisting of speculators, gamblers and real estate agents. The same houses are still being traded between the same pool of high earners.
If we had higher taxes, then it would help to curb speculation activity by preventing this form of asset inflation, and governments could use the money to redirect economic resources towards, say, actually creating new housing supply through transport infrastructure or training new engineers and doctors. Of course there is a big if there, because the government could also just use those resources to create more bureaucracy, but that is probably still better than real estate agents.
The big problem, though, is that once you move into the 0.1% nobody is paying any taxes. I mean, the wealthy are even quite open about this - its not some sort of conspiracy. The problem then is that if you just tax the upper middle income earners more, all you do is allow the ultra rich to hoover up all the assets off them even faster than they are doing now. It is a one way road towards neo-feudalism.
There is no easy solution. Probably a land tax would help, but that is almost impossible to achieve politically. France tried a wealth tax, and London is now stuffed full of rich French people. An aggressive death tax is probably the best solution, but again this is incredibly hard to achieve politically. Of course the natural solution is a revolution where the masses just confiscate everything. I really hope we can avoid this.
Re:Fake high salaries (Score:4, Interesting)
The current approach to avoiding this seems to be to install a huge surveillance system 'against terrorists'. Then, everyone who opposes the excessive concentration of wealth and power will become a terrorist. Done.
I think taxing the rich can be done to some extent. There are two arguments against it that are not entirely sincere. One is that the rich will run away. That's partly true and partly a trick from people who would like you to believe that. Another is that there's a threat of 'if you're well off they're going to take your money away' to scare everyone who has a bit of money. Actually you can put the threshold very high.
It's also about more than taxing the very rich. The very rich are getting richer. The mechanism is working in the other direction. Laws are made that accelerate this.
Re:Fake high salaries (Score:5, Interesting)
The easy solution is to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction or phase it out on homes over the median price for a county. Couple that with some kind of measures to block investment interest deductions on specific types of property (much trickier), and the speculation incentive starts to erode.
Re: Fake high salaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well geez, lower incomes did just that without reservations.
Re: (Score:2)
We have land taxes, they are called property taxes. You pay them to your state and local government and they fund lots of stuff including schools.
Re:Fake high salaries (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never understood this. I can't sell part of my property to pay my real estate taxes. When I retire, and my income drops dramatically, I am forced to sell my home (and go where?) because that's how I am expected to pay for someone else's child's high school education? This seems fundamentally unfair.
Let the people who have kids pay for them, or make local taxes a percentage of income (or both), so at least I am not forced to live on the streets because of someone else's lifestyle choice (i.e., parenthood).
Having kids is not just a lifestyle choice. It is what creates the workforce which will keep growing your food, selling it to you, providing your health care, funding your social security, upholding the value of your personal investments, and so on as you age. The act of raising a child, whether your own or adopted, creates hundreds of thousands of dollars of human capital in our society (much more or less depending on the quality of parenting). You could save billions to fund your retirement, but without other people's kids that value would all evaporate. And in a modern economy, it is the kids in those pricey school districts who will be doing most of the heavy lifting (figuratively) in keeping the future economy running.
Not everyone has to have children to keep the economy running, but someone does have to make that sacrifice. Complaining about doing your part to fund the creation of future generations is asinine.
Re: (Score:2)
For a society to maintain even just zero-growth population means on average every woman has to produce 2.1 children. Now maybe the coming age of AI and robots will alter that, but we're not there yet. Just look at Spain and Japan, two countries with negative demographic growth, and where falling populations literally are a demographic timebomb that is starting to go off.
Re: (Score:2)
If no one has kids, then no one is going to be looking after you in your fading years. I know this is tough for some people, but no kids, no society. So maybe you want to think twice before you demand to be let off the hook for "paying for other peoples' kids".
Re: (Score:2)
And if you were really cynical then you could view this as society valuing these things accurately: schoolchildren have a much better ROI. Old people are just waiting to die anyway, right? Gramps just needs to hurry along, and some good old fashioned poverty oughta clear that right up. Just don't kick the bucket before the healthcare system extracts as much wealth as possible from you/your family.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no easy solution.
A relatively easy solution is to tax corporate income, rather than profit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to fix something, don't eliminate the mortgage interest deduction (that actually encourages people to invest in their own assets), or increase the property tax rates (which are, effectively, land taxes). Rather, eliminate the capital gains exemption on primary properties. Right now, single filers get their first $250,000 in capital gains on sold primary properties ($500K for married filers) exempted from tax. We pay income tax on other forms of earnings from "savings" - but not on this. Make
But there _IS_ an easy solution (Score:2)
Taxes should be flat and based on percentage of income and assets. Yet in the US (I can't speak for the UK) we have over 80,000 pages of tax code to benefit the wealthy and punish everyone else who earns money. Middle class people can't afford to read through the tax codes or hire legal staffs to do so for them, only the wealthy can (and that means the very wealthy, because a millionaire can't afford to either).
Taxes are one of several reasons for the revolt in the 13 colonies and founding of a new count
Re: Fake high salaries (Score:2)
Just grab your guns
Sorry, I stopped reading there to go grab my guns. Came back to see what you wanted to do. Then saw your reply. It wasn't funny, it takes longer to put all these back! Grumble grumble....
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck the Taxes and all that bullshit... Just grab our guns and take what we want from from you rich fucks...
The problem is, and I know you're joking, but some people actually do think like this, is that the rich people have bigger guns.
This 18th century idea that an armed militia can keep the government (or anything) under control is ridiculous in this day and age. Those countries with the most civilian empowerment tend to focus more on educating their people rather than arming them. Pen and sword etc...
Militias (Score:2)
Okay, I read some history books. Afghanistan is everybody's favorite place to have a proxy war, so that's why that happened. Now go look at everywhere else that they didn't have a major government backing them up. Take a look at all the unsuccessful Nazi resistances. Take a look at Ruby Ridge. Take a look at every country that ever subjugated another.
The point of a modern military is not the "boots on the ground", but the infrastructure that gets them there armed, equipped, on time, with good intel about th
Draining the middle class, nothing new. (Score:5, Interesting)
The rich don't have income, they have capital gains. The rich also never learn. This will end badly. Very badly.
Re: (Score:2)
The rich do pay capital gains taxes [schwab.com]. Short term capital gains are taxed as regular income. Long term capital gains are still taxed once you make more than $40K per year. And the long term capital gains tax rate starts at a rate equivalent to the average tax rate of the top 50% [taxfoundation.org] - surprisingly close to where that $40K income would put you...
The rich do pay taxes on capital gains, but I understand it makes GREAT political theater to claim otherwise! It's great to ignore $716 billion [taxpolicycenter.org] in capital gains taxe
Re:Draining the middle class, nothing new. (Score:5, Informative)
The rich do pay capital gains taxes [schwab.com]. Short term capital gains are taxed as regular income. Long term capital gains are still taxed once you make more than $40K per year. And the long term capital gains tax rate starts at a rate equivalent to the average tax rate of the top 50% [taxfoundation.org] - surprisingly close to where that $40K income would put you...
Income is at (about) 40%, long term capital gains is %20, right? That's a huge break for people who have enough capital to live on the capital gains. Nobody thinks capital gains are not taxed at all, but that the relative rates favor the very wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people earning $150-300k will be living in a place like the SF bay area (because that's where the work that pays that much is), where their income is 12.5-25% of the median cost of a home.
The rich piss on the middle class. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called "trickle-down economy". You asked for it, you got it. Staying rich becomes easier, getting rich harder.
Elective Royalty (Score:3)
I have got an impression that the "elected" officials represent mostly themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "modernize"? I am cautious about this line of reasoning because these days phrases like "new ideas" are often used to refer to things that aren't new at all but aren't common because they have failed (like Marxism). Our founding fathers were extremely wise and understood human nature well. Human nature hasn't changed since then.
Our system of government is surprisingly well designed. Most of the fault lies in the voting population. So if your solution is some sort of direct democracy I
Re: Elective Royalty (Score:2)
Only theoretically though since local governments are shit too.
Re: (Score:2)
The way we vote sucks. Ending FPTP will result in more populist governments. These have their own problems, but we've gone too far down the road of republicanism to the point where the People have very little autonomy themselves, not even to select their leaders. That's sort of the central premise of Trumpism, that by doing this thing that all these establishment types hate, they must be having a real effect on the country. I almost wish it could be true.
We've been researching and theorizing about how best
Meanwhile, in my tax bracket... (Score:2)
..if his proposals go through, I'm looking at a refund about 10x what I was anticipating, with my obligation falling from 14,500 to ~10,000.
As I loathe giving this government a single dime, I have to say I'm quite pleased with this potential outcome.
Trump's statements and proposals? (Score:3)
Trump's policy statements are barely more relevant than they were during the Apprentice. Just look at what happened with health care, it's the congressional republicans driving legislation and Trump is essentially tweeting randomly based on clips he saw on TV.
Now, when it comes to tax policy his personal beliefs, give rich people a tax cut, are in line with Republicans as a whole, and he might actually push a specific policy because it personally affects him. But I don't think he has the basic competency to impose that view on congress. Paul Ryan's view is the one that really matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Death to middle class (Score:5, Insightful)
middle class?!
fucks sake i make less than 50.000$ a year in Sweden an pay 33â... of that in taxes!!! and i try to consider myself middle class.
anyone with a salary of that kind should pay a minimum of 60% in taxes and yeap, for that kind of taxes free health care, child support, free education for children, excellent roads on winter time and so on.
you guys in America are waay gone, have people living in New York going suicide for not affording health care but still refuse to pay more taxes, geez..
Re: Death to middle class (Score:4, Interesting)
Sweden's Government, by and large, governs appropriately and efficiently. The United States Government is self serving and power grubbing. Besides, they get more than enough money - our Defense Budget alone is more than the next 3 countries combined; meanwhile we have people literally starving in the streets, bridges collapsing due to an inability to maintain them properly, and nearly every one of our politicians is in the pocket of big business.
Never having lived in Sweden I don't know if that's comparable or not, but I suspect not.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:4, Insightful)
The US gov. is a mirror of the society, the politicians are a mirror of YOU, the ones that vote them, the ones that support them.
Stop blaming others.
I did not hear of you guys "hanging" all those politicians, bankers and lobby-ist that led to crashing the system in 2008 and destroyed the middle class. I did not hear you guys asking the banks to pay all those trillions back with interest directly to all those affected. I do not hear you guys asking for the army to be reduced and stop fighing others wars, impose gun control and more (free or subsidized) education for all, more taxes and transparency of all those taxes and fucking the lobby-ists and whatnot. I do not hear you guys asking for smaller car engines, smaller houses, modest living, helping your own people in need, decency allaround.
Guys, you went over board with the capitalism and perverted the democracy. I really hope you figure it out.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:2, Funny)
What are ya, some kinda commie.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, it's the American way to want more than you can afford and then bitch about it when either (a) you can't have it or (b) you get it and have problems - and how it's someone else's fault. (said as an American, who is debt-free and lives under his means)
Re: (Score:3)
Then you didn't watch the news. What do you think Occupy Wall Street was? The result involved a great many arrests, water cannons, and tear gas.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:5, Interesting)
Our political parties are not a good representation of our populace. Years of gerrymandering, corporate lobbying, and manipulation of the polls with things like voter ID laws have led us to our current political landscape. Less than maybe 35% of population really supports the kind of extreme conservatism that the majority of the republican party leaders espouse, but the republicans still hold majority in both halves of our legislature; as well as our presidency.
So I disagree that our gov is a mirror of our society. The gov is a perverted and twisted result of years of allowing certain government systems to proceed unchecked certainly. But I don't think our congress really mirror our populace.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
our Defense Budget alone is more than the next 3 countries combined;
Don't forget that at least 30% of that is not really defense. What do you folks do who graduate high school and have no idea what to do? Right, they join the armed forces.
The armed forces provide more social services than any other government funded program, all paid out of the Defense budget. And you know what? I like that. Because those youngsters don't end up on the street getting welfare and joining gangs, but they end up learning discipline, trades, and are ready to defend the country if needed.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Death to middle class (Score:2)
150k/year should be enough to pay for all of that. I make half that and I can easily let the wife stay home with the kids, own a house, pay off and have 2 cars, go out to eat and do day trips and vacations with 3 kids and still put ~500-1000/mo in savings.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're missing is that the increased taxes mentioned here are coupled with huge tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. The end result is trillions less being paid in taxes overall and more of the remaining tax burden being shifted to the lower income households.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're missing is that the increased taxes mentioned here are coupled with huge tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
List some, please.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:5, Insightful)
You will pay either way. If you simply allow people to go bankrupt, then there are significant legal and societal costs attached to major medical interventions. If they have no money or assets at all, then they still get the hospital treatment, and your taxes end up paying for their health care anyways. Unless your talking about literally throwing anyone out on the street who doesn't have health care, then you will still pay.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:5, Informative)
You are aware that the US has some of the worst average health outcomes of the industrialized nations, right? Even if bankruptcy were no big deal (which, of course it is, and Trump has never gone personally bankrupt) the US health care system is absurdly expensive, on top of poor outcomes.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Infant mortality is defined as the number of deaths of children under one year of age, expressed per 1 000 live births, so your example does not really work. If an infant dies within 1 year after birth, this is counted in the infant mortality rates for all OECD countries.
However, there is a difference in that the United States and Canada are two countries which register a much higher proportion of babies weighing less than 500g, with low odds of survival, resulting in higher reported infant mortality. In Eu
Re: (Score:2)
I think that, more accurately, after taxes (even with deductions), you are left with an amount that does cover rent, but rent chews up so much, that you are left with not a ton left over.
150k is still pretty good, but consider that if you had no deductions, you would pay 50k in taxes, leaving you with 100k. Then consider 5-6k a month rent. That would leave you with only 30-40k. Still not bad, but it gets chewed up fast.
Then you have the fact that many things are more expensivei n those locations (like fuel,
Re: (Score:2)
In Manhattan or San Francisco? Say, are you the old lady who lived in a shoe?
Re: (Score:2)
It has the same number of problems per person, I'd say. Maybe you haven't noticed that they have a short growing season, short construction season, and other challenges that you do not.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:2)
I'd like to introduce you to a little thing we call Alaska.
Re:Death to middle class (Score:5, Insightful)
$150K-$300K isn't middle class. That's fucking rich. Yes, I know, you whine about the cost of living when you chose to live in a rich neighborhood. Howeveer, that's your choice for living in a rich neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
$150K-$300K isn't middle class. That's fucking rich.
Defining what is "rich" is all semantics. Economists put $150-$300k household incomes into the upper middle class. This class has a very different life experience from people in the middle class, but an even drastically different experience from those who are wealthy.
Yes, I know, you whine about the cost of living when you chose to live in a rich neighborhood. Howeveer, that's your choice for living in a rich neighborhood.
And people in the middle class choose to live in a country with running water while there are people who live on $1 a day in other parts of the world. It is all relative. Everyone's standard of living tends to grow with their capability to pay
Re:Death to middle class (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, mission accomplished. We're all arguing about whether $150K is rich or middle class - and not talking about the fact that the pain stops at $300K - which, coincidentally, is probably where the most egregious tax inequities start. It's pretty hard to make >$300K a year without a lot of that being in the form of tax-preferred passive income like dividends and capital gains. There are more Americans than you'd think in this income bracket, and a truly disproportion of total US income is attributable to that group.
So Trump has us middle-to-upper-middle classers arguing about whether or not we're really rich, and the truly rich are getting to keep all the bounty. Kind of a clever trick for a moron like Trump. But then again, the summary starts with "If Trump sticks to what he has said", and Trump has never stuck to anything he's said, so why are we even discussing this. We were supposed to have "a great and beautiful healthcare system with lower cost and far better coverage" by now. "And it'll be really easy, believe me"...
Re:Death to middle class (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, mission accomplished. We're all arguing about whether $150K is rich or middle class - and not talking about the fact that the pain stops at $300K - which, coincidentally, is probably where the most egregious tax inequities start.
Nearly the entire Republican party is built upon a foundation of people who resent professionals (engineers, doctors, lawyers, managers) but idolize the wealthy. People are more likely to see $600k McMansions near where they live and resent those who can afford them, but they more rarely see the $6 million dollar homes of the rich. They assume those who gather extreme wealth are the best among us and deserve every penny, but those in the upper middle class are just pompous liberals who never had a hard days work in their life.
Class warfare is alive and well, and the wealthy are winning by a large margin.
Re: (Score:2)
Defining what is "rich" is all semantics. Economists put $150-$300k household incomes into the upper middle class. This class has a very different life experience from people in the middle class, but an even drastically different experience from those who are wealthy.
Call it what you will, but $150K puts you firmly into the top 10% [taxfoundation.org], and most of that $150K-$300K range will put you well into the top 5% of income earners. Most would consider the top 5-10% as "rich"...
Re: (Score:3)
Call it what you will, but $150K puts you firmly into the top 10% [taxfoundation.org], and most of that $150K-$300K range will put you well into the top 5% of income earners. Most would consider the top 5-10% as "rich"...
Most would consider the top 5% to be rich. But that is because most people don't have a very good grasp on money and income distribution. The average American thinks the average manufacturing CEO makes 20 times more than their factory workers while they actually make 354 time more. The average American thinks the top 20% richest among us have 59% of the wealth, while they actually have 84% of it. I agree that your opinion is what most people believe, I'm just telling you you're wrong.
Someone just barely in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's upper middle class. You're still one health injury or job loss away from not being in that bracket.
"Rich" is when you don't have to worry about any of that.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but that's a result of lifestyle choices. $150000 for a family of four is definitely easy street in terms of income.
I do acknowledge, however, that many families in that bracket can feel like they are struggling.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe, but that's a result of lifestyle choices.
Not always where health expenses come into play. The out of pocket expenses can be staggering. Even more so if congress again will allow lifetime maximums.
Not to mention those who care for family members that don't have adequate insurance or pensions, like parents or grandparents. The family typically end up with the bills, and grin and bear it.
Re: (Score:2)
The out of pocket expenses?
Does the us insurance system really work that bad, that 150.000$ is not enough to pay for care?
Re: Death to middle class (Score:2, Insightful)
No it doesn't. With 150k you can easily afford private health insurance with low deductibles. You're earning ~$10k/month after taxes, the worst insurance deductible is $10k/year.
Re: (Score:2)
Please describe the tax situation you're imagining. The federal rate, excluding state tax and payroll tax, is 28% for $150k. You're numbers are off by at least 10%. More money is more money and people with that income have it dramatically easier than people with half that income, make no mistake about it but your numbers of wrong.
It's a dramatically easier lifestyle than someone making half that, no question, but the numbers are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
No it doesn't. It's total BULLSHIT.
The max consumer burden for a good US private insurance policy is $6000 or less. That's pocket change for anyone making $150K. Or rather it should be.
That isn't true. I currently pay $1200/mo for Silver coverage for a middle aged couple. HSA/visit fees and deductible are added on top of that.
Maybe you meant $6000/per person per year + deductible?
Re: (Score:3)
No it doesn't. It's total BULLSHIT.
The max consumer burden for a good US private insurance policy is $6000 or less. That's pocket change for anyone making $150K. Or rather it should be.
That isn't true. I currently pay $1200/mo for Silver coverage for a middle aged couple. HSA/visit fees and deductible are added on top of that.
Maybe you meant $6000/per person per year + deductible?
______
Note to self: Remember to preview prior to posting to make sure quote boundaries are correct :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Death to middle class (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Correction. An income of $150000 for a family of four is "easy streets" IF:
1. No one has any chronic or unexpected medical problems.
2. None of the kids are in college.
3. There is a limited amount of debt (college loans are paid off, no maxed credit cards from hard times, etc.)
4. You live in an area where the standard cost of living is at par or less with the income.
5. The family doesn't have to deal with care costs for parents.
So on and so forth. That money doesn't go nearly as far as people think it does.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$150K puts you well into the top 10% [taxfoundation.org], and most of that $150K-$300K is well in the top 5%. Yes, it's rich. Is it enough for your situation? That's not the question - you are in the top 10% (or higher) for all income earners, meaning you ARE rich in income.
Spending now, that can make a rich man poor...
Re: (Score:3)
You'll notice that those that ask for this are also the ones that demand fairness in tax burden. Exempting those that could bear more than those that get to pay the lion's share is by no means fair.
Re:Death to middle class (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that it's the micro-handed crotch grabber's policy more taxes are bad? What happened to "I like paying taxes" and "taxes pay for civilization herp derp?"
As one of the people in the $150k-$300k range, I do feel I should be paying more taxes. The problem is if the increase tax burden is hitting the upper middle class harder than it is hitting the upper class. Just as I feel my tax burden as a percentage of my income should go up more than those in the middle class, the tax burden of the wealthy should go up more as a percentage of their income than mine does. Federal taxes are the primary form of progressive taxation in the US and one of our few tools to combat wealth inequality.
Re: (Score:3)
You can always pay more. Please do. I prefer not to contribute to the water and corruption. More government money does not equal better outcomes. You are free to pay more. And I have no problem if you do, but I have a big problem of you force others to be equally foolish.
I challenge you can name a developed country, or any large successful country in history, which was primarily funded by voluntary donations. You can't do it because it is not a reasonable funding method. The tragedy of the commons helps describe why this strategy is a fools errand. Whenever you have a situation where each individual sacrifice only hurts the individual, but collective sacrifice helps everyone, mandatory sacrifice is the only legitimate strategy.
Re: Death to middle class (Score:3)
No, no they don't. Have you actually ever met a female?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are obviously not poor and still fit and well.
It is easy to complain about taxes until one day, maybe, when you need it. Then you learn that it is morally just for people to pay taxes to help others.
Here in Australia we pay what you would call high taxes. The society seems to accept paying taxes as it has value. We have free health care and a safety net for those who need help whether they are old or handicapped you name it. Not perfect, but it gets tweaked over time.
It is possible to have a very good s
Re:Yuo have to pay high taxes for big government (Score:5, Insightful)
So you get to decide what is morally right and force your views...interesting indeed.
That is a very concise explanation of laws.
Either way I've seen what happens when poor Americans get ill.
Since they can't afford healthcare they have to rely on handouts.
In that situation there are two kind of people. Good ones that cares for others and that pays up a small sum so no-one has to die, and then there are people that keeps their money to themselves.
So, the choice is between a society where:
1) people dies in the street.
2) good people have to pay for everyone healthcare and uncaring people can keep their money.
3) everyone is taxed so that people don't have to die and good people don't have to pay for everything themselves.
You may not like paying taxes but you are defending a situation that benefits psychopaths more than anyone else.
Re: Yuo have to pay high taxes for big government (Score:4, Informative)
You forgot to mention the set of people who don't have HC will go to the Emergency room. ERs have to help people who have a immediate life threatening condition. So this very expensive service is passed onto that one hospital's customer base. But normally because the condition is so far along, the results are poor and people still die.
Those with a future appt with death can't use ERs and need to rely on charity. Which also has really poor results because again they can't do preventative, ongoing, and stable treatments in that financial situation.
Re: (Score:2)
In some ways what we're dealing with here is a lack of clarity -- at least among the mass of voters.
Health care spending in the US has increased faster than inflation every year since around 1960, but think about how different medicine was in 1960. In 1960 there were no MRIs or CAT scans. Chemotherapy for cancer was experimental. Heart valve replacement wasn't an option, nor was hip or knee replacement. There was no Viagra, no statins for high blood pressure, very little that could be done about diabet
Re: (Score:3)
If the law says that's how it is and you want to live in a developed country then sorry, but that's how it works. Otherwise nobody pays for anything and it all turns to shit.
Perhaps Somalia would be more to your liking?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I want big government and NO TAXES. I will blame the liberals and listen to Fox News, Drudgereport, Sean Hannity, so I do not have to take responsibility.
Re:Yuo have to pay high taxes for big government (Score:5, Insightful)
"Small government" is just rule by the rich. We've tried that already. In fact, it's the thing we've spent most of human history trying. It's a terrible system for everybody except the few people at the very top. Honestly, I don't think there's anything less "out of the box" than "let's let all the rich people make the rules and not try to constrain them in any way". Why is it that no conservatives have any working knowledge of history?
The vast majority of people would benefit from a larger government funded by higher tax rates. The rich fight this tooth and nail because they think it will be worse for them and they do not care at all whether it's better for everybody else, which is just selfish and evil, but the most important part is that it's not even true. A society in which public infrastructure is more effective and plentiful benefits EVERYBODY, including the people paying for the largest portion of it. It's incredibly obvious, but selfishness has a powerful ability to blind, it seems.
Re: Yuo have to pay high taxes for big government (Score:2)
How did you talk about small government and not talk about the biggest expenditures?
(2015)- Social Security benefits make up 20%. Followed by Military, Medicare, Unemployment, and other HC at ~15% each. 6% is net interest on debt. 5% is Vet benefits. The remaining ~25% is everything else.
Of the top 5, only Miliary is reviewed and set every year. I agree these is a lot to cut here. At the very least stop jumping into decades long wars. The rest are earned promises in the past. So what promises do you wa
Re:Brilliant! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's actually going to be more painful for those expensive areas like SF.
One of the proposals in Trump's tax plan is to drop the deductions for state and local taxes, and for mortgage interest. The areas where people earn $150-300k are usually the areas with high state and local taxes, and where houses cost a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, thanks for the info. That said, it seems somewhat backwards to me. If you wanted to remove one, the deduction on mortgage interest seems reasonable - the government isn't penalising you that money, you made a choice to pay it.
The state and local taxes on the other hand, by not having that deduction, causes people to be double-taxed, which is weird.
Of course, with my cynical hat on... if you wanted to penalise left leaning people, double-taxing people in states that pay high state and local ta
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not - if you earn income through capital gains, you get taxed at 15%. If you earn income through employment you get taxed at (up to) 35%.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, capital gains tax [schwab.com] reaches 20%, which is close to the average tax rate paid by the top 5% [taxfoundation.org] on all their income.
And the GP AC is also pimping a way that will DEFINITELY draw the attention of the IRS (a house from your corporation will be considered as material payment, and should be considered income - even if your corporation owns it, unless you can prove that it is used strictly for business purposes by anyone associated with the business) and land you in "Federal PMITA Prison".
Re: Another fraudulent summary (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole Trump "administration" is fraudulent. They will have to pass a blank tax bill before actually writing something with content. Republicans have had a long time to plan what they would do if they were in power. All that they can do still is to attack the Democrats. It is always Obama and Hillary's fault even when in control of all three branches. If that doesn't work, go after the Media.
There is no Republican tax plan! They have forgotten how to make a plan.
Re:Solution: cut the programs; all of em;military (Score:4, Insightful)
So you want taxes to pay for things that benefit you personally, and screw everything (and everyone) else. Typical libertarian.