BlogHer - Don't Be Married And Successful - Comments

Ah well

TW — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:59:55 -0500

My ex who makes way more money than the two of us combined appears to be in for an "Obama tax cut" of 6000+ dollars. I come out about even between McCain and Obama. My love will get no tax cut yet no increase allegedly. Hmmmm. Now that really makes me want to vote for him.

~TW
Retro-Food

$9,000/month = $216,000 annually

miteegirl — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:05:56 -0500

$9,000/month = $216,000 annually

You have over $284,000 a year in disposable income, eh?

Wow. That's a lot of lattes and limos.

$9000 a month in bills?

Liz Henry — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:55:07 -0500

How can that be? Seriously I'm asking. I live with what I consider to be incredible extravagence, in the SF Bay Area, and I can't imagine spending that much. Even with "the good things in life" and a family vacation! What on earth do you do with $9000 a month!

So my mortgage is $2200/month and other bills and stuff like all having cell phones, blazingly fast internet in the house, and fancy organic groceries, and gas, by no stretch of the imagination could it reach 9K. I almost never buy clothes and don't have car payments or any student loans, I guess that helps. Still! 9K! Check your lifestyle, no one is asking you to be dirt poor! Can you really have the incredible gall to call yourself not wealthy because you don't have a pony and a yacht? Or... maybe you do....?

Also last time I checked there is free education for your chillden!

What I don't understand is how the Republicans can bank on people's anti-elitisim and then make it clear it's all about the tax breaks for the super rich.

-----------------
Liz Henry
lizzard@bookmaniac.net
Contributing Editor, World and Latin America

Obama Tax Calculator: Find

miteegirl — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:56:48 -0500

Obama Tax Calculator: Find out how your income taxes will be affected under Obama's proposal:

Obama Tax Calculator

And, if you make less than $200,000 as a single person, or $250,000 as a married person, any increases in you won't see ANY changes.

Obama's proposal exempts everyone making under $250,000 from any capital gains tax rate increase. Although no specific rate has been put forward by Obama, for those making OVER $250,000, it is speculated that the capital gains
rate would increase from 15% to 20%.

No estate tax changes under the proposal unless the value of your estate is over $3.5 Million.

_____________

My parents in Virginia crossed party lines for the first time ever to vote Obama in the primarie. I just spoke to them this morning and they were considering not voting at all in November because they had the wrong information about the Obama Tax Proposal.

I sent them here, and now they are back to voting for Obama in November.

This is Crazy

maxwell22 — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:09:23 -0500

It's amazing to me to hear that we should be penalized for being successful and be asked to pay for programs for people who sit at home and collect unemployment. Granted their are many people affected by the community they grow up in and are not put in the best circumstances but the majority of the people are just lazy and look for ways to put the blame on other people. My wife and I make a combined 260K to 280K annually as we are both sales professionals. We are paid in bonuses which means we are paid for performance you don't sell you make no money and are fired. We earn our money and already pay 50% in taxes. This tax increase will put us over 60% and cause us to pay almost 30K more a year in taxes or $2500 a month. I do not know where you live but I live in NJ just outside of new York City with my wife and 14 month old daughter. After taxes we are at about 10-12K per month in income with bills totaling almost 9k a month. This tax increase would cause us not to be able to live in our home, pay our bills and not to be able to save money on a regular basis for our future and our children. Does that make sense? Does that sound fair? I pay for some person who sits on teh couch all day and collects unemployment and never looks for a job?? If My taxes are increased that much than I want free health care and free ducation for my children. In Holland they pay 70% taxes but all the healthcare and education is free. I earn my money and work 50-60 hours a week to ensure I make the money I do. I do it because i want things in life and I want my family to enjoy thgings and be able to go on a vacation. This tax increase would cause me to live check to check and I do not work this hard to do that. I did not come from the greatest of areas and came from a lower class family background but I worked and made something of myself so I do not want to hear people are not given fair chances. You make your own chances... I worked all thorugh college to pay for my education and was not handed anything. Where do all our taxes go now? I pay 50% taxes, we consistently increase tolls and every day our country is raising some other item.... where is that money going? Maybe i should just slack off and not make so much money and just add to the laziness of this country where all we have is people looking for handouts and expecting people to hand them things.

It isn't so much the taxes as what they fund

geekgirl — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:11:38 -0500

As previous posters have mentioned in their way, it is less the taxes that bother me, than what they fund and don't fund.

I am very envious of my French cousins who can take three years off when they bear a child and then send their children to fabulous schools. My tax dollars don't provide me with those things. And I don't imagine a tax increase suddenly providing my child with terrific schools, family with long paid parental leaves, a 35 hour work week, or socialized health care.

I need to keep my money to fund the care of my family myself.

The area in which I live is not as expensive as NYC. And in turn I don't earn the income described above. But I still have to be extremely careful about how I handle my paycheck to keep Uncle Sam from taking so much out of it that I can't afford to care for my family.

If I'm paying for something, I want get something in return. And I'm not getting a lovely Danish lifestyle for my taxes.

Christine

You think it is easy to make my $800 a month BMW payment ??

stinky200 — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:22:14 -0500

You try it!!

Seriously, where do you people live? Because making 250K and living in or anyplace near Manhattan, you are merely middle class. If you don't believe me, consider the fact that a 1 bedroom apartment in manhattan - a luxurious 700 sq feet of living space - is roughly 1.2 million dollars. So you tell me if I am a young person who is not independetly wealthy, with no financial support from my parents, whose 1 bdrm rent is 3K a month - how I am ever supposed to afford a down payment for a home? I can't. And if I am lucky enough to find the perfect man and our combined income is now 250K, after taking 54% out and assuming we are not complete hermits, it wll take probably at least 6 years for the down payment. Then by the time we pay for the wedding and save up enough money to buy a place with an extra bedroom for the baby, too late, no baby - I've already hit menopause.

I am married and 29 years old. My husband is roughly the same age. We are both college educated, work on wall st, and make roughly 500k a year. I would love to be a stay at home mom and pop out a few rugrats - but frankly, I can't afford it. Don't be niave in assuming we had priveleged upbringings - my husband is a refugee who came here not knowing a word of english and I've been known to work 14+ hour days for months at a time. We got to where we are today by having good parental role models, working hard, being ambitious, and having some degree of luck. But even at this level of income, it took years for us to be able to afford what is considered to be an average home within a 45 minute radius of Manhattan. I pay roughly 10K a year in school taxes although I have no children. I pay all of my social security to the govt although I have a business degree and I know I won't see it later in my life. I pay the highest premium for health & dental insurance to make the burden less on those less fortunate although I'm healthy as an ox. So please tell me something... I have been working hard since I've been 16...when I have a child am I not entitled to more than 3 months off of work to enjoy my child?? If things are so easy for all people who make 250K +, then why have all of my friends my age moved to the south?

My point is that salary is all relative - relative to location, the cost of living, age, and many other factors. Only people who can live off of their interest are truly rich. What lefty's don't seem to get is that the vast majority of people's living situations when making over 250K is vastly different than those of the "rich".

I do believe paying taxes is a civil responsibility, and I am glad to pay taxes. But get real people. It is also a civil responsibility to expect all people to work, support themselves, and achieve things in life. All of the tax money in the world cannot truly change a person's attitude or upbringing - which are large determinants in life. And only a very small percentage of people in this country are truly in need - those that have had terrible misfortune, have mental illness, etc. I get it - and I'm fine with picking up the check for that. But the vast majority of people in this country are complacent, lazy, unambitious, and expectant. You say no - then why do I see the same five people begging on the same corners every day? Are they too proud to go work at McDonald's? Get a job. For christ's sake, can I get the extra job? On top of all of the societal delinquents I have to worry about paying for, and the children I don't ever have to worry about being able to have, I do have that $800 a month car payment to cover, after all...

McCain: The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

chetcory — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:53:49 -0500

McCain's negative campaigning, and Obama's reluctance to engage in same frustrates the heck out of me.

I ran into this blog (on Blogher.com) written by a seemingly irate lady that was stewing about those over $250,000 reverting to the pre-Bush tax rates ( i.e. having to pay more) should Obama become President. What blew me away was that 95 - 98% of the responders reacted negatively to her comments. Most claimed to be making more than $250,000, and quite willing to pay more if it helps America's less fortunate. http://www.blogher.com/dont-be-married-and-successful

For some reason, Obama can not seem to get the message to the American people that he intends to lower taxes on those making less than $250,000 while having those making more than $250,000 revert to the pre-Bush tax rate of $39%. McCain keeps harping that Obama is going to raise taxes, but he (Obama) is only going to do so by letting the pre-Bush tax cuts lapse for the top 4% (those making over %250,000). Obama needs to drive this nail into McCain's heart! Good article on the differences in the Obama/McCain tax plans: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article

The non-partisan source for info on the Obama/McCain tax plans: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/

Mahalo, chet

USMA'81

PS May Bush and his cronies rot in hell for the needless deaths of so many of our soldiers and of the innocent Iraqis during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And may God bless our soldiers wherever they may be.

Copy Europe?

ZGZMAN — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:06:27 -0500

To Pretty Lady: If Danes are the happiest people on earth, why is their suicide rate so high? (23rd in the world with 30.4 suicides per 100,00, France is 16 with 24.1, USA is 30 with 19.8)

To Christine, Frog in North Georgia: Feel free to take 3 years for maternity leave like your cousins do in France. Just don't ask others to pay for it. As far as invention, innovation, and developement: Its not coming from France due to their poor work ethic and dependence on the government dole.

Wow.

Rider — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:38:51 -0500

Wow, I think I might be the only person on here who supports what American Princess has to say. For those of you talking about the money spent in Iraq, don't act like it wouldn't be added to our national debt anyway, the liberals would have just found something else just as worthless at home to spend it on. For you who ask why anyone needs to make that much money, its called quality of life and reward for your hard work. Its called Capitalism. You people are Communists, talking about being happy to donate money to the government. "Honored to share my wealth"? Great, then donate to charity, not your government. Paying for roads and all that is wonderful, but your excessive taxes also go to wasteful spending and government agencies that trample on our civil rights, like the BATFE. Obama believes in wealth redistribution, and that's Marxism. Who was one of the first to come up with the idea of a progressive income tax, like we now have, thanks to FDR (so much for what he said about the income tax being "temporary")? That's right kids, it was Karl Marx.

Everyone is excited about Obama because he's all about "change, hope, and the future" but no one is really looking at what this guy believes in. Many of his earliest influences had a Marxist/Communist bent. Obama has been linked to William Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground who bombed the Pentagon in the seventies. Yes, you want change, but is the change that Obama believes in going to be good for this country? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Vote Libertarian!

Tax the Rich!

centertax — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:20:13 -0500

Some politicians have been using class envy forever to further tax the rich.

The true data shows that the top 1% of taxpayers pay 39.9% of all federal taxes, but they show just 22% of the income on tax returns.

The top 5% pay 60.1% of all federal taxes, but show just 36.7% of the income.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only 3% of the total tax, and many tax filers actually have a NEGATIVE tax because of the earned income tax credit (or federal welfare which is actually what that is).

A raise of any taxes hurts all of us because it takes money out of circulation, and the wealthy can't buy as many goods or hire more people. It just makes bigger government.

These statistics come from IRS from the latest year available, 2006. If you don't believe it check www.irs.gov.

I am a tax preparer, not one of the evil wealthy

Flat Tax

PunxsutawneyPaul — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:08:25 -0500

I have heard most of the arguements about a flat tax, but really, it is the fairest way to go. Just think of all of the money we could save by shutting down most of the IRS. But if we go with a flat tax and no deductions, it would save a lot of paperwork, time, and perhaps put a major dent in the sale of pain relievers. I hope that more people see these comments and think about what Obama really stands for, well, leans for, think leftest. Sadly most of the problems with our government will not be fixed any time soon, due to too many people being greedy and no one willing to "bite the bullet". Even worse, for some reason, way too many people want that hand-out, and will not help anyone else.

Essential premise

JFisher — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:54:10 -0500

If $250K is "not uncommon" as you say for two college grads, what exactly do you think the percentage is in this country of married college graduates’ annual salary being above a combined $250K? If you believe it is not uncommon, I think that you need a reality check. You appear to contradict yourself and undermine your premise by beginning the hypothetical “what if you're a successful woman, or even just a marginally well-paid one, who, alone makes a very nice salary…” with the term “successful” or “well-paid." If they are considered successful, then they are not as common as you think. Again, I ask you to consider the percentage of people who make over $250,000.00 per year versus the percentage of people who make less. (And I’m talking about a lot less than even $125,000.00 per year). Please, don’t rest your entire argument on a premise that is essentially flawed.

Paying for Education

grussoedit — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:38:59 -0500

Single, as a divorcee from a fairly brief marriage who decided never to fall into that trap again, and a mother of 0 children, early on I felt the same way you do. But 25+ years working in educational publishing changed my views PRONTO!

Because I was fluent in Spanish (not my first language, by the way) I spent 15 years working for a major U.S. math and science publisher that had a highly successful Latin American subsidiary, whose manuscripts I edited here in the States before their release to production (mainly because our Latin American translators and editors often didn't understand the original English version well enough to catch crucial errors!).

Among our company's best-selling titles was a 3-book college-level physics series, late in its third edition when I began work there in 1972. Two years later, the 4th edition landed in my lap, piece by piece. Imagine my surprise when, during one of our meetings, a central question from the Latin Americans was whether or not we should bother to publish it at all when sales were expected to be so low! Why? The first two volumes were then being used in many of the best universities in the U.S. at the undergrad Physics major level, and the third at postgrad level (although initially, all 3 volumes had fallen into the undergrad category). Guess what the answer was? At that time, the Latin American sales reps could sell the first volume only at the HIGH SCHOOL level! And they needed a 3-level series for university undergrads that went well beyond the scope that the new edition would cover. I can tell you that, presently, that divergence is even wider, and NOT in our favor!

This really wasn't news to any of us. Anyone who's worked in educational publishing and is over 50 can tell you just how much our educational system has been dumbed down. The result? A populace that reads less, understands less, and is less capab;e of absorbing the meaning of what's going on around them is far less likely to interfere with the status quo at election time, and far more susceptible to smears, innuendo, and pandering during the campaign.

So, while I hate taxes as much as you, I've long sense abandoned the thought that I have no responsibility to help educate other people's kids. Because I don't want to keep on living with the results of an ill-informed populace that persists in electing the lowest common denominator to our highest public offices. They are far more costly to us in the long run if they are ill-equipped to vote for the kind of leadership we so desperately need!

Obama's Tax Plan and an Alternative Proposal

grussoedit — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:37:54 -0500

Gee, Princess, I really weep for you... NOT! However, in Sen. Obama's shoes, I'd have taken a slightly different tack in addressing tax reform. Because the biggest problem facing our country, in addition to the deficit and the Wall Street giveaway we'll all be paying for to save the hides of those responsible for the mortgage debacle, our biggest problem is the looming Social Security crisis.

As a 60-year-old who started paying into the System at the ripe old age of 14, I obviously have a dog in this race. By the time I was 18, I realized there was no Social Security Trust and that my generation would be lucky to see anything, on an inflation adjusted basis, comparable to what we paid in. So, here's a proposal for Senator Obama.

Social Security is due us. However, it should not raise the rates of our middle-class children and grandchildren. Instead, it should affect those who pay the least (on a percentage basis) and earn the most. If I recall correctly, last year's cap was $110K. What that amounts to as a percentage of income for someone who earned $1 million is NOT the 8% of income most of us pay. In fact, it was 0.088%!!! Furthermore, the more you pay in, the more you're entitled to in benefits payments when you retire.

Now, wouldn't it make more sense if: (1) all Social Security recipients received the SAME payment amount? (2) all persons who paid into the system and did not exceed a REASONABLE yearly amount (which, despite astronomical increases in living costs has not changed in eons!) from other sources would get full benefits; and (3) ALL job compensation were taxed at the same percentage? After all, if a nurse's aide, a bus driver, or a teacher can afford 8% of every dime they make, certainly the doctors, lawyers, and CEOs of large corporations wouldn't miss it half as much as they do. And, by the way, when I say ALL JOB COMPENSATION, I mean the half-price stock options a lot of them get, often for VERY shoddy job performance, too! This would help balance the picture for both women and those without whose services we couldn't survive as a society, but whose contribution to it is poorly compensated!

And since we know the government would raid the "trust", it would also enable us to kill off Bush's deficit in something short of a millennium witihout dumping it at the door of those can least afford it and had virtually nothing to do with its existence. Let's transfer some responsibility to those who caused our predicament for a change!

Don't Be Married And Successful

American Princess — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:04:54 -0500

I'll be honest. If there's one thing I absolutely hate, its taxes. Well, that may come in only slightly under formal short pants, but lets say that taxes are near the top, and although I was willing to believe, for a short while, that Barack Obama's tax plan was going to involve only a moderate increase at worst, I knew that I was being naive, particularly given the sheer number of social programs and government infringement on individual liberty he was proposing at speeches across the country. The equivalently-funded-to-the-military "civilian defense force" idea he had back a few weeks ago should have clued me in that the tax increase his economic advisers would...er...advise was going to be a massive income redistribution scheme aimed at destroying millions of successful people's ability to keep and spend their own income.

What I could never have predicted was how brutally it would punish successful women who were also married and whose income was a second household income less than their husbands.

To begin with, they propose bringing back the 39.6% top income tax bracket, an increase from the 35% current top rate. On top of that, he'd impose a new payroll tax on those top earners of 2% to 4%, bringing their marginal tax rate to as high as 43.6%. Add to that the top New York City income tax rate of 3.648% and the top New York State income tax rate of 6.85%, and the nominal marginal income tax rate mounts to a staggering 54%....

..."His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000."

Don't think that this is somehow going to just tax the rich into oblivion, and redistribute their wealth to the struggling proletariat. Nope. The capital gains tax is projected to stay where it is, meaning that those whose income reaches the higher levels (many, many middle class families, entrepreneurs and business owners included) would hopefully be able to restructure their income as capital gains, so as to avoid 54% of their income being taken away to fund inevitably useless social programs.

So who really gets punished? Well, as the New York Sun observes, two income families and particularly women. If you are earning close to the $200K mark (or even if your're not), or as an unmarried couple, you fall just under $200K, you're safe from the 54% income tax. If you get married, however, and your combined income exceeds $250,00, you're out of luck.

Under Obama's plan, you're about to be severely punished. And technically, its the lower income earner who would be punished...who often, for a variety of reasons both social and personal, are the lower income earners in a two-income family.

So what if you're a successful woman, or even just a marginally well-paid one, who, alone makes a very nice salary, who meets someone who doesn't do non-profit work or have the decent sense to remain unemployed in a welfare state, you do the math and come out with a figure just over $250K (not uncommon for two college grads)? As a successful woman, are you just supposed to remain single to avoid the penalty? Or are you supposed to give up your income and stay home with your family? As nice as that would be, being a stay at home mom, or a swinging single should be a choice -- not something accidentally engineered by an economic scheme. Hell, we're always complaining about how society encourages certain personal relationships...why should we accept an economic scheme that makes the same moral judgment?

Perhaps the solution is really to do away with societal recognition of marriage, and this is really just a way of sneaking in civil partnerships, but something tells me that, like everything else that surrounds the Obama campaign that seems like it should be a joke, they are very serious about this.