What really get me, and maybe this should be a different topic all together, but I get a raise and it bumps me into the next tax bracket. Now for the next year (or until my next raise) I am actually making less than I was before. I was better off with out the raise!?!?!?

You should only be taxed on the higher level on that income above the next tax bracket line.

That may not make sense.

Let's say you make $30,000 a year...the next tax bracket up is at $33,000.

You get a $5,000 raise to go to $35,000 per year in income.

You are not taxed at the new rate on all your income...only the $2,000 above the next bracket is taxed at the higher rate. Your first $33,000 (in this rather simplistic example) is still taxed at the lower rate.

I won't disagree with you there Leaky. Someone had posed the question as to how certain people are using more resources than others. By paying the higher taxes they are getting more(resources) out of the government that is taxing them. I have no problem with that. If I was paying what they are paying . How do you know I am not? My location says Babbitt, for all you know I could have a place on Birch or Bear Island and be paying more in taxes or I could have a little place in Babbitt and be paying way less You are from Ely, you know the drastic differences in property values up here depending on where you live up here. There are plenty of people paying as much as the folks in E.P. and Edina (maybe even more).

I know it is semantics but I didn't use the word "rich". "Rich" has developed a negative connotation. I used "wealthy" in an attempt to steer away from that. I have no problem with people making good bank. I don't do too shabby(IMO) myself(not rich but better than just being comfortable) and I definitely wouldn't turn down doing better .

BoxMN, I wouldn't presume to call you "rich" and didn't because I have no clue as to what (nor would I concern myself with what) your financial situation is. Hopefully if you are in Cross Lake for the holiday you are "rich" enough to hit Zorbaz for a pizza and a beer , I miss their pizza.

If the analogy that started this thread holds true the 5% are not paying 95% (out of the $100 bill the one guy(out of ten guys) was paying $59 so that would translate to the top 10% are paying 59% so it wouldn't be feasible for the "top" 5% to pay 95%)

Hey casey, I got you, and sorry it seemed my "rich" statement was aimed directly at you. More the thread in general seems to pit wealthy ("rich") against middle class. And actually, I am unfortunately not in Crosslake this weekend, as I must stay and work (not too much), imagine that. Would certainly rather be having a pregnant burrito at Zorbaz Have a great weekend!

Discussion is good.

I posted this mainly as a rebuttal against those who are constantly claiming that tax breaks are for the "rich". I get really sick of hearing that. Tax breaks usually bennefit everyone, except of course those who are not getting one because they don't pay anything in to begin with.

To be perfectly honest, I myself could care less if the rich are getting richer off of tax breaks. I personally do not want to become "poorer" because the tax cuts were recinded OR taxes were raised.

There are people in this country who recieve a refund greater than the sum total of what they paid in federal income tax. To me, it seems as if we are rewarding people to NOT work hard and try and improve their lives, but merely saying...."its ok, we'll just take some of the rich peoples money and give it to you."

Those who have not seen a tax they don't like(Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer...) need to define what is "rich" before they are allowed to perpetuate this myth. Unfortunately for the rest of us middle class people thats something they won't do because they will suddenly realize they fall into the category and all those who they have been snowing for so long will see them for the hypocrites they are.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

That's the million dollar question; do tax breaks to the wealthy stimulate the economy, or simply shift the burden to the middle class.

I am not convinced the wealthy should pay that that much of a higher rate of tax on their money than we do. I mean really, they worked for and earned their's too. But on the other hand I don't think they should get any special breaks or be able to shelter or hide their money from taxes either.

I know of friend of the family who being a single mom and raising kids and working (gotta give her credit for doing what she can) gets a tax return for about 3 times what she paid in. Earned income credits? What the h!!!! is that? I can agree she probably needs a helping hand to make it work and keep her off welfare, but there has to be an better way than that.

I've often wondered how that works too.

They did define what is ''rich'' it is anything over $250,000 a year. And they want to shift that tax burden from the middle class to those who make over $250,000. If you make $250,000 a year I can understand why you would be mad, But If you make less why complain that they want to shift the taxes to those that are wealthier.

Well, look at the uber-rich like Al Gore, whose house, after being optimized Green - uses 10% more energy than before - and probably 100% more than the average person uses. Or "Silky Pony" John Edward's house - whose sprawling castle is an energy hog.

It just irks me that those at the front of the re-distribution and global warming groups are still living like resource pigs. Walk the talk. Don't make the rest of us wear hair shirts, while you still live the over-indulgent life.

Well said and very valid points. Do you need all that space for just you and your small families? You can have a nice house without getting absurd about it. How about the private jets? Pretty sure it burns more than my SUV.

please trust me it's nothing personal, Casey, but everytime I hear the train of thought above I think of the quotes below.... and find them the antithesis to the principles our country was founded upon.


-G


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Karl Marx, 1875.

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

Vladimir Lenin, year unknown.

Croixflats, $250.000 is before tax income. So what does this end up being after taxes? aprox. $137,500. ($112,500 in taxes) If you own a small business it gets worse. Not a bad income I agree but far from rich in todays world. So my question to you is, what do you think that this person should be paying if they are not paying there fair share currently?

Come on now, close to 50% of your money is not enough, you should know that!!! I'm not even near the same league as the people that make that much, but they are paying a ton. I really wish someone would just say how much they really need so we could right a check and move on.

Just to add a tiny bit for those who might not know it... but when I was self-employed I got a big eye opener when I saw first hand how the employer (the self-employed "employer", as any self-employed folks know all too well) pays twice the SS tax. Because as we all know, the "employer" pays half the SS tax for its employee. So those folks making $xxx,xxx don't really have the same percentage of take home that most of us have. Now, they set their price and have to take that into consideration, but just saying $100,000 for a small business owner is not the same as many peoples thoughts of a hundred grand... meaning, exactly what Sandman and fishorgolf mention... again just my useless two cents to add to the conversation