Would you have been happy to do that before Obama?

How am I being irrational?

Most business owners devote almost every waking hour to their business. If one of them takes home 250k after dealing with everything there is to deal with, and then that 250k is slashed in half or more and now takes home about 125k. You are telling me you'd rather work your ass off and get eaten alive by taxes, then do something way easier and take home 75-80?

Your saying you would enjoy working from Jan-july/august for free?

You are also saying that that successful business owner's money is entitled to someone else? You make more so more of a % of your hard earned money, someone else is entitled to it?

But this has nothing to do with small businesss. You can replace running a cupcake business with being an accountant.


What does 10M in gross revenue have anything to do with this? You don't measure the success of a business by gross revenue. If his net profit before taxes is 300K, it is what it is. I don't see any difference between this and a business consultant being paid 300K for his labor.

If anything, small businesses as a group don't pay their legal share of taxes because it's easy to dodge taxes with a business and it's easy to dodge the attention of others at a small scale. This is probably going away to a degree with an increased use of electronic payments, but either way, romanticization of small businesses in American politics has much to do with populism, as opposed to some obvious societal benefit of people running small businesses, over being otherwise gainfully employed.


I'm curious, what percentage of those in the top income bracket, do you think, derive a majority of their income from business, small or large?

If you make over 100k you are going to work for some months for free. I would simply try to maximize my wealth within certain constraints after accepting that fact.

All I am saying is people should keep an overwhelming amount of what they earn. Entirely too much is wasted. Anyone who thinks 40-50% or more of someone's income is not entitled to them can not give a legitimate reason against someone like me saying that they should keep at least half of that 40-50% they have to pay in taxes.

No one can give me a legitimate reason as to why I am wrong because I would rather spoil my 2 year old with extra ******** then to have that extra money to go help some idiot with no money to pay for his 2 year old's food.

If the government wants to take an extra 3k from me in the name of helping the poor, and let us say that that extra 3k would actually go directly (by miracle) to feeding some family and not stolen and wasted. let's also say, that if I got that 3k confiscated from me it really would not mean all that much to me either way in the grand scheme of things for me and my family financially, I am not loaded, but more or less well off. Try and tell me I am a bad person or wrong because I want to take my family on a nice vacation even though I know if I didn't go on that vacation, that that money would feed a couple families for a month.

Please try and articulate to me why I am wrong for choosing to take my family on vacation.

So what does any of this have to do with Obama?

"spreading the wealth" ?

Now can you answer my questions from above please

Calculate the income taxes you would have payed given your 2010 income in 2001 and what you actually payed. I think it will be hugely illustrative to you.

But teh Glenn Beck sez.......

This isn't devoted to just Obama but everyone in government.

And Obama's taxes are coming down the line, raping everyone. Including my 2 year old.

What the **** does me wanting to spend my money I earn how I feel instead of having it confiscated in the name of giving it to r.etards, have anything to do with glenn beck?

Oh my name? Sorry, I go to the GLEN country club in Glenview, Illinois, and play golf a lot. Not anything to do with Glenn Beck.

Just think of all those 100 dollar plus tee times I pay for, and how it could have went to some idiots who can't even earn a buck. god I am SUCH a bad person. I mean instead of swinging a golf club for the cost of 100 bucks I could have that money subsidize some crackhead or gambling addict.

So when I asked what does any of this have to do with Obama, you should have said nothing. Next time you argue about this, lean what income is and leave Obama out and you would have alot better case.

Ok, read this thread from start and got tired and flicked through the last 2 pages. But here goes,

1. Being rich is to do with your standard of living not yearly income and should really been seen as a relative measure. So a person earning $10K a year in China is baller (I hate that word). However MJkidds argument that a person earning 250k a year is not rich in the US is terrible. Living in up market houses and having two cars per person is extravagant (poor word to use I know), if you can afford such luxuries you are rich whether you choose to spend it said luxuries or not (that includes living in NYC).

2. The reason why most people are not "rich" has nothing to with the government and taxation, bur rather that there are limited resources to go round and most people aren't going to do too well. The horrible fact of life is that most of us are going to have to work for a living and choose which luxuries we have (if we are lucky enough in the first place to have the choice).

3. The people itt who've said "250k a year is not rich" and "the poor envy the rich" etc... Remind me of a character of the Boondocks called Dan Stuckey and I loved Ed Wuncler's summation of Dan's character.

ya, his debt debt doesnt include any increased taxes I or anyone else will have to pay in the future. I mean don't ya know? spending more fixes everything.

We will all be immune from having to pay for the most irresponsible over spender this country has ever seen. Nothing to see here folks

My hero!!

So it looks like you just don't like Obama because you are upset about things you clearly cannot even begin to understand given you don't even know how income is calculated for income tax. Thats why nobody is going to actually try to answer your questions atleast.

EPIC... Are you the guy the Stan Smith cartoon was fashioned after?

Because of course, all poor people are crackheads or gambling addicts.

Why is it terrible to have a different definition of what rich is? I think that at a minimum rich should be a big house, two expensive cars, sending kids to private schools, buying kids nice cars when they turn 16, taking a sweet vacation every year, buying nice consumer goods and saving at least 30-40k per year for college/retirement. In some areas in the US this sort of lifestyle is going to be impossible on 250k. In most areas in the US this sort of lifestyle would probably be possible on 250k but it would be pretty marginal.

eta: oh and having a minimal commute. You have to add 20k additional in yearly savings for every hour your commute is over 30 minutes a day.

Marginal? You'd be considered painfully bad with your finances if you could not comfortably make all the things you list possible.

Define "nice" consumer goods.

fyp

I don't think it is 'terrible' for different people to think of being 'rich' in different terms. The same could be said of terms such as 'fat', 'smart', 'hard-working', etc.

The hilarity of the situation comes when someone who is in the top 2% of these descriptions argues they are 'not' these characteristics.

Is someone in the top 2% in terms of IQ 'smart'?
Is someone in the top 2% of body fat percentage 'fat'?

While someone could argue the usefulness of such labels, to argue the truthfulness of such labels is ridiculous.

If you make $250,000 in the U.S., you're rich. Get over it. I'm not saying you should feel guilty for being rich, or you should be in a higher tax bracket for being rich. You're rich, that's all. You've earned the cash, now live with the ****ing word.

You're going to net less than 150k after taxes with a gross of 250k, call it 12k/month. Let's consider a family with 3 kids.

600k mortgage + taxes, 4k/month
lease on 2 luxury cars, 1600/month
lease for cars for kids, 600/ month
insurance for vehicles, 300/ month
gas for vehicles, 300/month
clothes/shoes/electronics/entertainment/jewelry etc, 1000/month
utilities, 300/month
food/eating out, 1500/month
landscaping/maid 400/month
for a total of $10200

That leaves 2000/month for sweet vacations, saving for college and retirement, private schools for the kids, braces, insurance co-pays, and so on.

So it's really ridiculous that I'd say that the "rich" marker is more towards the 350k range for a family of 4 in some areas of the country rather than 250k? lol?

These are hilarious. A maid? Seriously, if you have a maid, or pay for landscaping monthly, or spend $1500 a month on food, or $1600 a month on vehicles, you're rich. It is ******ed to suggest otherwise.

Yes. lol.