• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

Conservative said:
That isn't what I said as desperation sets in with another liberal.
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
many in that 50,000 range pay zero in Federal Income taxes
Click to expand...

If you were unable to articulate the example (based on a family of 4 with with two children under the age of 17 making less than $50,000/year), then it would have been best not to make the statement at all. The example was clear as day to me. What seems to be the trouble?

Is your ego so fragile that you have to demand an apology? do you or do you not support letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the so called rich? If not then I apologize, if you do then my statement stands.
Click to expand...

Your inability to debate my statements as opposed to your perception is nothing short of a fallacy.

I am entitled to my opinion and what I see is someone who advertises themselves as a Libertarian acting and arguing like a liberal.
Click to expand...

Back to discussing me as opposed to my statements.

The Thread topic is GOP plan to extend tax cuts for the rich adds 36 billion to the deficits. Is that what you believe?
Click to expand...

It reduces tax revenues by $36 billion. Can you deal with that?
 
No one has been able to prove that treating the overtaxed more fairly decreases revenues. That claim is based on a false premise that everything else will remain constant which is complete BS

and the only thing that adds to the deficit is government spending. Get rid of more spending than there is revenue and there is no problem.

Of course that would cost the dems votes because their voters tend to be net tax consumers
 
Goldenboy219;1058967582]If you were unable to articulate the example (based on a family of 4 with with two children under the age of 17 making less than $50,000/year), then it would have been best not to make the statement at all. The example was clear as day to me. What seems to be the trouble?
Click to expand...

The fact is if there is one then there is on more person not paying taxes that is capable of paying taxes yet you have no problem with taxing the rich more. Just another example of pure jealousy on your part. It is my opinion that you just don't like anyone that makes more than you.



Your inability to debate my statements as opposed to your perception is nothing short of a fallacy.
Click to expand...

I have refuted your statements. Obviously you don't like being challenged and proven wrong.



Back to discussing me as opposed to my statements.
Click to expand...

You are advertising Libertarian and acting like a liberal.



It reduces tax revenues by $36 billion. Can you deal with that?
Click to expand...

Nope, no proof that the tax cuts for the rich reduced revenue by 36 billion nor is there proof that the behavior of the rich will remain the same if their taxes go up. guess all those books you read didn't teach you about personal behavior. I would have thought that someone as intelligent as you would understand the multiplier affect of personal spending on economic growth. Apparently not.
 
TurtleDude said:
No one has been able to prove that treating the overtaxed more fairly decreases revenues. That claim is based on a false premise that everything else will remain constant which is complete BS

and the only thing that adds to the deficit is government spending. Get rid of more spending than there is revenue and there is no problem.

Of course that would cost the dems votes because their voters tend to be net tax consumers
Click to expand...

According to the U.S. Treasury, they do decrease revenues.

Check lines 23-28 on page 16 of the following pdf

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf
 
Conservative said:
The problem is simple math doesn't take into account human behavior thus there is no such proof. It is a prediction and projection which from this Administration and Congress hasn't been very accurate, has it? You really think that letting those tax cuts expire is going to generate more tax revenue which then will reduce the deficits? LOL, prove that the govt. has ever reduced the deficit by getting more personal income tax revenue?
Click to expand...

It's not up to me to determine or feed your speculation as to what a Democratic Congress may or may not do should they get that +$36M in tax collections. All I can tell you should that happen is monitor what they do with it and hold their feet to the fire if they don't do what you think they should do which, I'm sure, would be to pay down the deficit. My hope is that's exactly what they'd do, but until it happens there's just no use speculating. Still, based on projects from the article, it would seem that the deficit would increase under Republican control should they allow the Bush tax cuts to continue. If true, then my question remains: How would the tax cuts be paid for?

Here's where I see Republicans saying one thing but unwilling to make the tough choices as well and do what's right. Here they say the deficit's too high, we're borrowing money and we're treating the Treasury like it's our personal printing press. Okay then...why not make a hardline decision and give up on letting the tax cuts expire for those who make $250K if it is shown through whatever non-partisan egency that doing so will reduce the deficit? If it can be demonstrated mathmatically that taking this action would allow the Treasury to take in revenue and, thus paydown the deficit, why would you not be in favor of this?

Are you so stuck on principle that you'd put your partisanship over what's best for the country?
 
pbrauer said:
According to the U.S. Treasury, they do decrease revenues.

Check lines 23-28 on page 16 of the following pdf

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf
Click to expand...

That article was writting in 2006 with only two full years of numbers. I gave you the Actual Treasury revenue and also provided the IRS link that shows how much the rich paid after the tax cuts, you ignored the link. Why? Do you realize that actual numbers trump opinions?
 
Conservative said:
That article was writting in 2006 with only two full years of numbers. I gave you the Actual Treasury revenue and also provided the IRS link that shows how much the rich paid after the tax cuts, you ignored the link. Why? Do you realize that actual numbers trump opinions?
Click to expand...

nah, to libs stuff that promotes wealth grabs is always more accurate even if it makes no sense to someone who is objective
 
Objective Voice said:
It's not up to me to determine or feed your speculation as to what a Democratic Congress may or may not do should they get that +$36M in tax collections. All I can tell you should that happen is monitor what they do with it and hold their feet to the fire if they don't do what you think they should do which, I'm sure, would be to pay down the deficit. My hope is that's exactly what they'd do, but until it happens there's just no use speculating. Still, based on projects from the article, it would seem that the deficit would increase under Republican control should they allow the Bush tax cuts to continue. If true, then my question remains: How would the tax cuts be paid for?

Here's where I see Republicans saying one thing but unwilling to make the tough choices as well and do what's right. Here they say the deficit's too high, we're borrowing money and we're treating the Treasury like it's our personal printing press. Okay then...why not make a hardline decision and give up on letting the tax cuts expire for those who make $250K if it is shown through whatever non-partisan egency that doing so will reduce the deficit? If it can be demonstrated mathmatically that taking this action would allow the Treasury to take in revenue and, thus paydown the deficit, why would you not be in favor of this?

Are you so stuck on principle that you'd put your partisanship over what's best for the country?
Click to expand...

Tell me how raising taxes on anyone is in the best interest of the country? Do you believe that expiration of those tax cuts will generate 36 billion to the Treasury? We have a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit so even if the 36 billion goes to the Treasury and is used to lower the deficit it then becomes 1.36 trillion and you lose the multiplier affect of that 36 million in consumer spending or saving.
 
Objective Voice said:
It's not up to me to determine or feed your speculation as to what a Democratic Congress may or may not do should they get that +$36M in tax collections. All I can tell you should that happen is monitor what they do with it and hold their feet to the fire if they don't do what you think they should do which, I'm sure, would be to pay down the deficit. My hope is that's exactly what they'd do, but until it happens there's just no use speculating. Still, based on projects from the article, it would seem that the deficit would increase under Republican control should they allow the Bush tax cuts to continue. If true, then my question remains: How would the tax cuts be paid for?

Here's where I see Republicans saying one thing but unwilling to make the tough choices as well and do what's right. Here they say the deficit's too high, we're borrowing money and we're treating the Treasury like it's our personal printing press. Okay then...why not make a hardline decision and give up on letting the tax cuts expire for those who make $250K if it is shown through whatever non-partisan egency that doing so will reduce the deficit? If it can be demonstrated mathmatically that taking this action would allow the Treasury to take in revenue and, thus paydown the deficit, why would you not be in favor of this?

Are you so stuck on principle that you'd put your partisanship over what's best for the country?
Click to expand...

you cannot reduce the deficit when the government continues to spend at a higher rate than even these tax hikes will supposedly bring in

and since those pushing for most of the idiotic spending won't suffer tax hikes, there will be no incentive for those who pander to them to stop this massive spending
 
Conservative said:
Tell me how raising taxes on anyone is in the best interest of the country? Do you believe that expiration of those tax cuts will generate 36 billion to the Treasury? We have a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit so even if the 36 billion goes to the Treasury and is used to lower the deficit it then becomes 1.36 trillion and you lose the multiplier affect of that 36 million in consumer spending or saving.
Click to expand...

But the deficit would have decreased by .4 trillion dollars, correct? 1.4 trillion...down to 1.36 trillion. And the good of the country would mean that's .4 trillion dollars we don't have to borrow or print which are the very issue staunce Conservatives are arguing against?

So, again, if it can be demonstrated mathmatically that taking this action would allow the Treasury to take in revenue and, thus paydown the deficit, why would you be in favor of this?

It's a very simply question.
 
Objective Voice said:
But the deficit would have decreased by .4 trillion dollars, correct? 1.4 trillion...down to 1.36 trillion. And the good of the country would mean that's .4 trillion dollars we don't have to borrow or print which are the very issue staunce Conservatives are arguing against?

So, again, if it can be demonstrated mathmatically that taking this action would allow the Treasury to take in revenue and, thus paydown the deficit, why would you be in favor of this?

It's a very simply question.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you are betting on an Administration that has yet to be accurate on any economic prediction. The question is why? What exactly did the Obama Administration do with the TARP payback? Did they reduce the deficit? What makes this different, simple question?
 
Conservative said:
Interesting that you are betting on an Administration that has yet to be accurate on any economic prediction. The question is why? What exactly did the Obama Administration do with the TARP payback? Did they reduce the deficit? What makes this different, simple question?
Click to expand...

Its a faith based operation for them
 
TurtleDude said:
you cannot reduce the deficit when the government continues to spend at a higher rate than even these tax hikes will supposedly bring in.
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. The deficit will increase before it begins to decrease. And just when should that process begin? Now, you say? Well then, these minor tax cuts could be the start. So, let's assume this is where it begins. Simple question: Would you support letting the Bush tax cuts expire if you could be convinced that the collected revenues would go toward paying down the deficit?

and since those pushing for most of the idiotic spending won't suffer tax hikes, there will be no incentive for those who pander to them to stop this massive spending
Click to expand...

Oh, but it does! I don't think we Democrats want such an enormous deficit anymore than the next guy, but anyone who thinks this happened only since Obama took office is not living in reality. Now, I'm not going the route saying, "We inherited" anything (although we all know the truth of the matter), but I think the majority of the measures taken since Oct 2008, whether they took place in the latter portion of GW Bush's tenure or since Obama took office, were done with the best interest of the country at heart. Not all of them I agree with 100% but I do see the good and the bad in it. And I think the good out-weighs the bad. But that's my opinion. What I'm trying to get to is if there were any tax cuts that excluded the wealthy and were applied to the deficit would Republicans accept?

You guys label it as class warfare, but I see it as those who can best help their country making such a sacrafice for the good of the country. I don't see it as classes of people based on their economic position. I see it as people of greater privilage who are in a better position than others to help the country. Now, if Republicans are so much more patriotic than Democrats, why wouldn't such a sacrafic not be the patriotic thing to do?

You guys have said here in this thread that the poor shouldn't receive a tax refund because they didn't pay taxes. Well, if that's the case that would mean you cannot get the money from that economic "class" of people, right?

And although those in the middle-class do earn enough to pay taxes, in most cases by your own argument, this group of wage earners don't pay half of the nation's total tax revenue. By your own admission, this group could help, but not make much of a difference.

So, who else is left to make this sacrafic? Who?

I'll say it here and now: I don't mind paying taxes as long as my tax dollars are being properly allocated. I believe this is the issue Republicans have with government (Democrats) overall, but it's interesting that you still felt that way under Clinton who handed this country a surplus when he left office. So, I ask at what point are you willing to live your own narrative and make the hardline choices and do what's best for the country?

Conservative said:
Interesting that you are betting on an Administration that has yet to be accurate on any economic prediction. The question is why? What exactly did the Obama Administration do with the TARP payback? Did they reduce the deficit? What makes this different, simple question?
Click to expand...

I don't think the 2011 budget has been estalished yet. So, none of us know how those funds will be utilized. And yes, I know there was some flap over how the Obama administration wanted to use those funds, but I can't remember what the outcome was. So, I can't speak to that w/o researching the matter further.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Okay, fair enough. The deficit will increase before it begins to decrease. And just when should that process begin? Now, you say? Well then, these minor tax cuts could be the start. So, let's assume this is where it begins. Simple question: Would you support letting the Bush tax cuts expire if you could be convinced that the collected revenues would go toward paying down the deficit?



Oh, but it does! I don't think we Democrats want such an enormous deficit anymore than the next guy, but anyone who thinks this happened only since Obama took office is not living in reality. Now, I'm not going the route saying, "We inherited" anything (although we all know the truth of the matter), but I think the majority of the measures taken since Oct 2008, whether they took place in the latter portion of GW Bush's tenure or since Obama took office, were done with the best interest of the country at heart. Not all of them I agree with 100% but I do see the good and the bad in it. And I think the good out-weighs the bad. But that's my opinion. What I'm trying to get to is if there were any tax cuts that excluded the wealthy and were applied to the deficit would Republicans accept?

You guys label it as class warfare, but I see it as those who can best help their country making such a sacrafice for the good of the country. I don't see it as classes of people based on their economic position. I see it as people of greater privilage who are in a better position than others to help the country. Now, if Republicans are so much more patriotic than Democrats, why wouldn't such a sacrafic not be the patriotic thing to do?

You guys have said here in this thread that the poor shouldn't receive a tax refund because they didn't pay taxes. Well, if that's the case that would mean you cannot get the money from that economic "class" of people, right?

And although those in the middle-class do earn enough to pay taxes, in most cases by your own argument, this group of wage earners don't pay half of the nation's total tax revenue. By your own admission, this group could help, but not make much of a difference.

So, who else is left to make this sacrafic? Who?

I'll say it here and now: I don't mind paying taxes as long as my tax dollars are being properly allocated. I believe this is the issue Republicans have with government (Democrats) overall, but it's interesting that you still felt that way under Clinton who handed this country a surplus when he left office. So, I ask at what point are you willing to live your own narrative and make the hardline choices and do what's best for the country?



I don't think the 2011 budget has been estalished yet. So, none of us know how those funds will be utilized. And yes, I know there was some flap over how the Obama administration wanted to use those funds, but I can't remember what the outcome was. So, I can't speak to that w/o researching the matter further.
Click to expand...

So if you would not mind paying taxes that are properly allocated are you saying that Obama should let ALL of the tax cuts expire? If not, what did you mean with this statement?

As you are probably aware there is already an idea out there to spend the $300 billion from the added taxes on people over $250K. That is to eliminate payroll taxes on the first 20K of earnings. Just another class warfare arguement.

It has to be a hoot for the folks like Axelrod and Obama's other handlers during the election. They sold us this not ready for prime time clown under the guise of bringing people together. I think even you would admit that Obama has shown no interest except to be a most partisan everyday political hack.
 
washunut said:
So if you would not mind paying taxes that are properly allocated are you saying that Obama should let ALL of the tax cuts expire? If not, what did you mean with this statement?
Click to expand...
If doing so under the right circumstances would help with the issue at hand, yes. For example, if the economy was in decent shape but the nation still had a high deficit and the issue now was merely getting the deficit under control, then yes, I would support paying more in taxes as long as I was convinced that those tax revenues were going to do exactly what they were implemented for - to pay down the deficit. But right now, the issue is two-fold: 1) increase demand so that consumers will buy more so that industry will produce more so that people can get back to work; and, 2) to pay down the deficit.

You can't do both by taxing both sides of the economic divide. It just cann't be done. You increase taxes for everyone, then you eliminate the very reason to produce more goods and services domestically because you've done the one thing Conservatives say they covet - not allowing wage earns to keep more of what they earn by taxing them when they really can't be taxed anymore to cover the cost of the deficit. That time will come, but in this down economy where the people most affected are the working/middle-class, you just can't tax them anymore. But the wealthy can still afford to pay more in taxes because althought they are doing more with less perhaps like everyone else, they likely are not as negatively affected as everyone else.

As you are probably aware there is already an idea out there to spend the $300 billion from the added taxes on people over $250K. That is to eliminate payroll taxes on the first 20K of earnings. Just another class warfare arguement.
Click to expand...

Well, since it's already been argued that people who earn such low wages don't earn enough to pay taxes anyway and, thus, are not entitled to a tax refund, I don't see why this would be a problem.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
If doing so under the right circumstances would help with the issue at hand, yes. For example, if the economy was in decent shape but the nation still had a high deficit and the issue now was merely getting the deficit under control, then yes, I would support paying more in taxes as long as I was convinced that those tax revenues were going to do exactly what they were implemented for - to pay down the deficit. But right now, the issue is two-fold: 1) increase demand so that consumers will buy more so that industry will produce more so that people can get back to work; and, 2) to pay down the deficit.

You can't do both by taxing both sides of the economic divide. It just cann't be done. You increase taxes for everyone, then you eliminate the very reason to produce more goods and services domestically because you've done the one thing Conservatives say they covet - not allowing wage earns to keep more of what they earn by taxing them when they really can't be taxed anymore to cover the cost of the deficit. That time will come, but in this down economy where the people most affected are the working/middle-class, you just can't tax them anymore. But the wealthy can still afford to pay more in taxes because althought they are doing more with less perhaps like everyone else, they likely are not as negatively affected as everyone else.



Well, since it's already been argued that people who earn such low wages don't earn enough to pay taxes anyway and, thus, are not entitled to a tax refund, I don't see why this would be a problem.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason the stimulus did not work as well as expected is that the tax benefits did not increase demand as much as anticipated. This is a monetary recession not a standard the economy is stalled recession. People are in debt up to their necks as much as the federal government. They can't use their house as a piggybank. They have to repair their balance sheets. So that is why this added spending along with the Fed keeping interest rates at all time lows is just like pushing on a string.

I wish the President would tell people the truth. It took a long time to get into this mess and it will take a long time to get out.

There have to be real tax and economic policy changes and even then it will take time. Robbing from Peter to pay Pan might be good politics for a democratic president but it is lousy policy.

Lastly I have to giggle about where you started. You would be fine to have your taxes raised, but now is not the right time. But it is exactly the proper time to raise other people's taxes. Sort of like the character in the old Popeye cartoons. I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today.
 
Question to the anti stimulus crowd. Why has the US growth rate fluctuated in proportion to the rate of stimulus spending? During the peak spending rates (late 2009-early 2010), the economy was expanding between 3% and 5%. As the rate of spending has diminished, growth has been less than 2.5% and looks to be trending lower. In early 2010, federal stimulus spending was near $200 million/ hr.
 
washunut said:
Part of the reason the stimulus did not work as well as expected is that the tax benefits did not increase demand as much as anticipated. This is a monetary recession not a standard the economy is stalled recession. People are in debt up to their necks as much as the federal government. They can't use their house as a piggybank. They have to repair their balance sheets. So that is why this added spending along with the Fed keeping interest rates at all time lows is just like pushing on a string.
Click to expand...

Please, let's not deflect again. My question wasn't about the affectiveness or ineffectiveness of the stimulus program. My commentary was just about taxation and how one group of people could have a much better affect on our nation's economy than another at this stage of our nation's economic problems. If you wish to classify such as "class warfare", fine. Stay stuck in the political divide. For me, it's about doing what I believe is the right thing for the country. And from all the counter-arguments I've heard none really make sense.

You can't tax the poor. They don't have the income to make a difference on the economy tax-wise.

You could tax the working/middle-class, but they're already struggling to keep their heads above water. Besides, as has been stated time and again they apparently don't pay half the total taxes collected in this country. So, while their added tax would help, it wouldn't draw down the deficit that much.

The only other tax base that's left are the wealthy who likely could afford to pay more. And many have said so.

I wish the President would tell people the truth. It took a long time to get into this mess and it will take a long time to get out.
Click to expand...

But he has been saying that since he took office, and he has been slammed for it by those who claim that by repeating it all he's doing is creating anxiety and fear among investors. Investors know the deal. They'll just shift their investment from stocks to bonds, from domestic interest to foreign investments. It's what they do...find the best venue to invest their money in order to make money. I've heard several infomercials advertising just that since the recession began. I don't begrudge them.

There have to be real tax and economic policy changes and even then it will take time.
Click to expand...

The President has stated this as well several times.

Robbing from Peter to pay Pan might be good politics for a democratic president but it is lousy policy.

Lastly I have to giggle about where you started. You would be fine to have your taxes raised, but now is not the right time. But it is exactly the proper time to raise other people's taxes. Sort of like the character in the old Popeye cartoons. I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today.
Click to expand...

And I stand by that not because I'm against paying higher taxes, but because like many Republican politicians I don't think raising taxes against a certain class of people in a non-targetted way to correct the economic problems this country has will resolve the problem. So, as I see it...

Q. What is our nation's problem?

A. The lack of jobs.

Q. Why aren't there many jobs available?

A. They went away due to excessive risk in the financial sector. As such, they're not lending money to small businesses.

Q. What affect does this have on small businesses?

A. They don't have the operating capital to grow their business or pay salaries for their employees.

Q. What's the end result of small businesses not being able to grow/expand nor hire employees?

A. Their productivity generally falls off because demand for their products and services is no longer there.

Q. How do you break this gridlock?

A. There's no easy answer here, but one recommendation has been that since larger banks aren't willing to free up capital, maybe the thing to do is give loans to smaller regional banks and credit unions so that small businesses can go to them instead to get loans. The other issue, of course, is what we're debating right now - to extend the tax cuts to the working/middle-class - that segment of people who can spur product/service demand and get businesses producing again - and allow them to expire for those who make over $250K and use those funds to pay down the deficit. The way I see it, it's a strategy that should work because doing so would tackle all parts of our nation's economic problems: job growth, increased productivity and pay down the deficit.

Will it work? In theory, it should but only time will tell. But as you have said, "It took a long time to get into this mess and it will take a long time to get out."
 
Last edited:
Hypocrite, your name is John Boehner aka as the tan man.Here the hypocrite is on ABC's "Good Morning America" , Wednesday saying "We can't deal with the deficit until we're willing to get our arms around spending and have a strong economy,".


On meet the press he was dodging and ducking with the following exchange with the host, DAVID GREGORY. The subject was the bush tax-cuts.

GREGORY: Leader Boehner, he puts it right to you.


BOEHNER: The only way we're going to get our economy going again and solve our budget problems is to get the economy moving, get more people back to work where they can care for their own families and begin to expand the tax rolls to bring more revenue to the federal government. And what we have to do is we have to get our arms around the spending spree that's going on in Washington, D.C.

GREGORY: But Leader Boehner ...


BOEHNER: That's the only way we solve the budget problems.


GREGORY: ... I'm sorry, you're—that—you're not, you're not being responsive to a specific point, which is how can you be for cutting the deficit and also cutting taxes, as well, when they're not paid for?


BOEHNER: Listen, you can't raise taxes in the middle of a weak economy without risking the double dip in this recession. President Obama's favorite Republican economist, Mark Zandi, came out several weeks ago and made it clear that raising taxes at this point in, in the economy is a very bad idea.


GREGORY: But do you agree that tax cuts cannot be paid for ...


BOEHNER: You cannot balance the budget without a ...


GREGORY: But tax cuts are not paid for, is that correct?


BOEHNER: I am not for raising taxes on the American people in a soft economy.


GREGORY: That's not the question, Leader Boehner. The question ...


BOEHNER: And the people that the president wants to tax ...


GREGORY: ... is, are tax cuts paid for or not?


Are the Bush Tax Cuts Paid For? - Newsweek
 
donc said:
GR2010081106717.gif
Click to expand...
I guess we now know who has the biggest balls.
 
if the top 2% of tax payers weren't paying so much of the taxes they would not get such a big tax cut
 
TurtleDude said:
if the top 2% of tax payers weren't paying so much of the taxes they would not get such a big tax cut
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can help me with something. I keep hearing this 2% of taxpayers would be effected. As only 53% of the population pay any Federal taxes that would mean an income of $250K for a family would be in the top 1% of earners. I had thought that 250K would get you into about the top 5%?

Do you know what this statistic is or where it can be found.

Thanks
 
washunut said:
Perhaps you can help me with something. I keep hearing this 2% of taxpayers would be effected. As only 53% of the population pay any Federal taxes that would mean an income of $250K for a family would be in the top 1% of earners. I had thought that 250K would get you into about the top 5%?

Do you know what this statistic is or where it can be found.

Thanks
Click to expand...


I heard that it was around 350K that was top 1%

haven't looked in a while but the obama target of 200K is below the top 1%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom