And I think the bottom line of using the 47%/half of the people mantra is to create an us-vs-them dynamic.

I was going to ask if it's the government that benefit or if it's the country and the country's economy that benefit, but others have raised a similar theme in the last few posts.

Not saying government can't be wasteful (or even self-interested), but when that's the case, then as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

And "social programs" for the working poor are also meant to benefit the government/country. If the working poor have no way to make ends meet, what do you think is going to happen?

They go on welfare? IF the poor can't make ends meet, there are multiple programs available to them such as Sec 8 housing, SNAP, utility, and tax credits. I don't agree with the notion that a employer provided 401k is a gov benefit no different than food stamps or cash welfare assistance. I don't see your point there.

Sorry, my question is what happens if there is no welfare. Do you want to live in a city where people have no legal means of feeding themselves? Because I don't.

Well, and therein lies the ultimate problem. Nobody wants the "social program", as defined in that article posted earlier, that THEY benefit from directly cut. They just wants the ones that those "lazy" people sitting around collecting welfare while living high on the hog cut.

All these folks who griped about the stimulus package are now griping about the return of the extra 2% Social Security withholding. They weren't in favor of the stimulus package, but they ARE in favor of paying less to Social Security, because they saw a direct benefit.

Ditto with Obamacare. I don't think anybody wants to be excluded from insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition, nor do they want to have to pay higher premiums because of a pre-existing condition. Also, 2.5 million people between the ages of 19 and 26 are now covered under their parents health insurance when they weren't before.

I'm going to counter your post by saying that nobody thinks their taxes should go up, but they believe the OTHER guy's should. They want to keep all the social programs, but want somebody else to pay for it... that is the ultimate problem. I can't comprehend how someone who pays little to no fed income tax can point their finger at someone who pays $80,000 in income taxes and say they aren't paying enough, or they aren't paying their fair share.

There are lots of people in the upper income group who have said raise our taxes, so that's not exactly true. Once the economy is on a better footing, the entire Bush tax cut package should go away since it is a major cause of our deficit and was never a permanent tax cut.

I know if I had a choice of being in the 1% and paying 50% taxes or making my current salary and paying 25% taxes, I'd choose the 1%...lol. Hands down, no question, I'd choose the 1%.

Of course. Anyone that says otherwise is lying.

Well, lying or brainwashed.

Do you all see people claiming that or is that a hypothetical for the thread?

What I see is a few people, who may already be in the 1% depending on what we're using for the cut off, say in essence "if I can't expect the same return on my efforts beyond a certain point because of increasing taxes, I'm not going to continue at 100% beyond that point."

There'd be some people at the cusp of the cut-off in that hypothetical who would really take more money home in the 25% tax section, but, as I understand taxes, the scenario is really far removed from the reality of how things work and would be a ridiculous claim to make.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem ridiculous that a small business owner could look at the cost and benefits of a slightly reduced workload and decide to cut back. And it also doesn't seem ridiculous that the business owner's decision could have a negative effect on other people because he or she cuts down on spending as a result.

But again, I think only folks in the 1% already are typically able to control their work and compensation this way.

(It's funny to me in a pathetic way: I suppose there could be a ton of people who manage to live in a close to debt free and low expense way who have discretionary income to spare and enormous work related flexibility who could do this at a lower income level. I just have a hard time imagining it.)

I'm not saying that I want a system that depends exclusively on private charity, but a city without government welfare isn't necessarily a city where people have no means of feeding themselves.

I agree with the point that most "entitlements" deliver social benefits beyond the recipient.

Sorry to triple post, but what data are you looking at? (That's sincere question, not a sarcastic "that data doesn't exist claim.)

I'm seeing more claims that indicate it won't come close to paying for our spending, particularly with new costs of Obamacare and increasing social security.

Certainly, the end of the Bush era tax cuts move us in the right direction, but I'm not seeing anything that gets close to doing "much to close the deficit."

No they wouldn't. You won't take home more money in a lower tax bracket. They are being taxed the same on the income up to that 25% tax bracket level. The income over is then taxed at a higher level. You CANNOT make more money by making less. This is the fallacy. I'm in the 1% already and know people in the 1% so I'll tell you that no one is going to stop making money so they can stop paying taxes. They may find a way to get out of paying taxes, but no one is going to stop making money. Period.

Wow, I was googling to show an example of the tax brackets and found this web page. It lists tax brackets from 1913-2011. Our tax rates have fluctuated wildly over the years. Check out 1954-1963 when the highest tax bracket was 91%.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-...usted-brackets


But, this is the 2013 bracket. So if you make $500,000, you will pay:
Rate Single Filers
10% $0 to $8,925 you pay 10% of 8925= 892.50
15% $8,925 to $36,250 you pay 15% of 36250-8925 = 4098.75
25% $36,250 to $87,850 you pay 25% of 87,850-36,250= 12,900
28% $87,850 to $183,250 you pay 28% of 183,250-87850= 26712
33% $183,250 to $398,350 you pay 33% of 398,350-183,250= 70,983
39.6% $400,000 and up you pay 39.6% of 500,000- 400,000= 39,600

So you add those up and you're paying $155,186.25 which is actually a 31% tax rate when you average it out.

You're only taxed at a 39.6% rate for the money you make over $400,000.