Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Maddermax wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
It's getting a bit crazy, and hopefully the 'fiscal cliff' (stupid name for it) doesn't have as serious an impact as predicted, because with Europe still economically fragile, it could have serious repercussions around the world.

"Going over" the fiscal cliff will initially mean almost nothing for government operations and spending in the short term. We already got the memo at work this past week (yes, I word for a government agency) stating that, for our agency, the cliff would mean about a 8% cut to the annual budget for the agency, but given that the agency has all the way until September 30 (end of the fiscal year) to find ways to save that money...it pretty much means business as usual for the first month or two for most agencies. Now, some agencies may be hit harder than others, though.

If anything, the real damage will be how other nations react, how credit rating agencies (and other economic institutions) will react, and how much the tax increases will (and when) hit the American people.

The tax increases are the least of the worries - there's already a bill that's passed the Senate to extend the bush tax cuts and payroll tax cut for people earning under $250k. It'll be political suicide for the Republicans to oppose that after January. However, while It's good to hear the the cuts will be pushed back for some months, I think the markets reaction to the failure to find a deal, and business who work with the federal government cutting down staff or not expanding because of possible future cuts will have a more immediate impact. We'll have to wait and see though, and we'll find out in a few days.

And they may very well be voting on that as soon as we go over the cliff.

Because politics is stupid like that.

If they vote on that bill today, then they will be voting to raise taxes for a tiny minority of people in the USA. So they wouldn't be the anti-tax party.
If they vote for the exact same bill next week they will be voting to cut taxes for almost all Americans! So they would be the anti-tax party!

Go figure.

 d-usa wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
It's getting a bit crazy, and hopefully the 'fiscal cliff' (stupid name for it) doesn't have as serious an impact as predicted, because with Europe still economically fragile, it could have serious repercussions around the world.

"Going over" the fiscal cliff will initially mean almost nothing for government operations and spending in the short term. We already got the memo at work this past week (yes, I word for a government agency) stating that, for our agency, the cliff would mean about a 8% cut to the annual budget for the agency, but given that the agency has all the way until September 30 (end of the fiscal year) to find ways to save that money...it pretty much means business as usual for the first month or two for most agencies. Now, some agencies may be hit harder than others, though.

If anything, the real damage will be how other nations react, how credit rating agencies (and other economic institutions) will react, and how much the tax increases will (and when) hit the American people.

The tax increases are the least of the worries - there's already a bill that's passed the Senate to extend the bush tax cuts and payroll tax cut for people earning under $250k. It'll be political suicide for the Republicans to oppose that after January. However, while It's good to hear the the cuts will be pushed back for some months, I think the markets reaction to the failure to find a deal, and business who work with the federal government cutting down staff or not expanding because of possible future cuts will have a more immediate impact. We'll have to wait and see though, and we'll find out in a few days.

And they may very well be voting on that as soon as we go over the cliff.

Because politics is stupid like that.

If they vote on that bill today, then they will be voting to raise taxes for a tiny minority of people in the USA. So they wouldn't be the anti-tax party.
If they vote for the exact same bill next week they will be voting to cut taxes for almost all Americans! So they would be the anti-tax party!

Go figure.

Only difference is that they're now going to be the Obama Tax Cuts, rather than the Bush Tax Cuts. In fact, the Democrats should call the bill "The Obama Tax Cuts Act" just because half the GOP would reflexively vote against it because of the name alone. It'd be hilarious trolling.

But this is american politics. The biggest concern for the house will be the 2014 primary elections. The states have already drawn up the districts to make the seats as safe as possible from the opposing party, so the biggest risk for the incumbents will be the primary elections. So it doesn't really matter that Obama signs the tax-cut and/or tax-raise, that will be pretty much completely irrelevant in 1.5 years.

If they vote for the senate bill in the next few days they will have voted for a tax increase on the rich. That means they are now RINOs and will face stiff opposition from a Tea Party challenger who will be running attack ads about how the incumbent voted to raise taxes on the job creators and that the challenger will be a "true fiscal conservative who will keep taxes in check and not raise them like Representative Tax-a-Lot".

If they vote for the senate bill next week they can run their own ads full of puppies and flowers and happy families with the soothing voice telling us that "Representative Tax-Cut voted to cut taxes on 95% of Americans".

 Maddermax wrote:
The Republicans seem to be acting like children at the moment - they can't even get a bill through the Republican caucus, let alone the Republican controlled house, because of in-fighting. Now they're demanding that the Democrats come up with all the plans - so they can yell and scream at them to try and score political points, rather than taking flack for making their own proposals. They basically want the Democrats to negotiate themselves down, so that the Republicans don't take any blame for proposing actual cuts.

It's getting a bit crazy, and hopefully the 'fiscal cliff' (stupid name for it) doesn't have as serious an impact as predicted, because with Europe still economically fragile, it could have serious repercussions around the world.

Wow... heaven forbid that the duly elected Democrat representives actually do the job they are supposed to and present their own bill. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with American politics, but generally both parties come forth with a bill and through the political process they hoth get butchered to pieces until enough people come together to pick one. Now I've seen the Republican party come forth with what I consider to be a pretty damn good solution (which was shot down because Obama and enough Democrats apparently believe that $250k per year household income should put you in a higher tax bracket, living in just such a household I can tell you we are anything but "upper class"), I haven't seen the Democrats come forward with a plan, so, maybe they should stop playin w ith themselvesand listen to the republicans.

Democrats passed their plan in July, been sitting and waiting for a vote in the house since then.

The last Republican plan got shot down by the house Republicans...

Even if the House Republicans had supported it, I doubt Obama would have signed it into law, and thats part of the reason Republicans didn't back the plan, because it was too much of a compromise (personally the fact that they wouldnt vote because it was a compromise irks me) and it was doubtful to become reality. Signing your name to something that is not in keeping with what your voter base apparently believes in in order to avoid crisis is politically dangerous, signing your name to something that is not in keeping with what your voter base apparently believes in when you know full well that it isn't going to resolve the crisis anyway is political suicide. You can pursuade an electorate to look the other way in the former, but in the latter case it looks like something else entirely. I hate politics...

The only way the House will ever vote on the Democrat plan is if they, you know, actually bring it forward for a vote. Why they haven't I honestly don't know.

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Obama isn't a Far left guy. He's more just left of center on most issues, but on others he is on the far left.

Opps... that's true, I'll edit that.

I think you should first figure out which directions left and right actualy are.

Relative to American politics...

No, relative to left and right <--- --->

whembly wrote:I refuse to believe that the likes of Ried, Pelosi et. al and other (D) are "Center".

It's more like:
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left
.....................Tea Party.........R____________D___Durbin/Boxer/Reid/Pelosi____
....................................................................Obama
edited to fix Obama

chaos0xomega wrote:
(which was shot down because Obama and enough Democrats apparently believe that $250k per year household income should put you in a higher tax bracket, living in just such a household I can tell you we are anything but "upper class")

250k a year is five times the average annual income in the us...

Besides, if I recall correctly households over $250,000 would pay the exact same rate on the first $250,000 under the senate bill already passed. Only income over $250,000 would be taxed at the higher rate. So if you make $300,000 you would pay the higher rate on $50,000.

 d-usa wrote:
Besides, if I recall correctly households over $250,000 would pay the exact same rate on the first $250,000 under the senate bill already passed. Only income over $250,000 would be taxed at the higher rate. So if you make $300,000 you would pay the higher rate on $50,000.

Well yeah, thats how our tax system has worked for a while. Still, its kinda silly to classify 250K as a higher tax bracket. If you make 250k you still arn't rolling in money. its still solid Middle Class.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Obama isn't a Far left guy. He's more just left of center on most issues, but on others he is on the far left.

Opps... that's true, I'll edit that.

I think you should first figure out which directions left and right actualy are.

Relative to American politics...

No, relative to left and right <--- --->

whembly wrote:I refuse to believe that the likes of Ried, Pelosi et. al and other (D) are "Center".

It's more like:
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left
.....................Tea Party.........R____________D___Durbin/Boxer/Reid/Pelosi____
....................................................................Obama
edited to fix Obama

Don't you know... we're ass'ed backwards!

I hope this doesn't come off as insulting, and I'm not trying to target anyone specifically here, but I don't think there's any other way to put it.

I realize that 250k a year is not mega-rich, like Romney or Bill Gates or even Obama. However, it is absolutely upper class. I'm saying people with 250k should or shouldn't be in a higher tax bracket, but anyone who makes that much money and tries to claim that they aren't upper class is pretty out of touch with how good they have it.

There is nothing wrong with having a high income. I do however find it extremely condescending when people who have a high income try to play it off by saying things like "Oh, we're not really that rich" or "We're not really upper class." I'm not sure what the point of that is? Is there something painful about admitting you're way better off that the vast majority of Americans?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Besides, if I recall correctly households over $250,000 would pay the exact same rate on the first $250,000 under the senate bill already passed. Only income over $250,000 would be taxed at the higher rate. So if you make $300,000 you would pay the higher rate on $50,000.

Well yeah, thats how our tax system has worked for a while. Still, its kinda silly to classify 250K as a higher tax bracket. If you make 250k you still arn't rolling in money. its still solid Middle Class.

Dude, 250k is not solid middle class. I would say it's lower upper class. At the very least, it's the top peak of high middle class. If someone makes 250k a year and can't figure out a way to make that work comfortably, that person is horrible at managing money.

What does Upper Class mean to you exactly?

I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class.

Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.

I don't know what it is with you Yanks. How did you have such a great and booming economy twenty years ago and have such a crappy one now?

Answer: China. You're scrambling to get over this so-called cliff but your economy is dying. It has been dying or in decay for many years, even when the economy was growing. You're exporting all your jobs to other countries where they do it cheaper, among other things.

If it's any American's fault, it's the corporations.

Not really, the real issue is our Government Policies that have been making it very unattractive to do business in America. Its cheaper to move to China/other countries and sell products to the US.

The businesses are just making the smart move, or do you think that a business in America should stay here just because its the right thing to do?

 Grey Templar wrote:
What does Upper Class mean to you exactly?

I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class

I'm sorry, but if a person making 250k is struggling to make ends meet, they're doing something wrong. They have most likely made a poor financial decision or a series of poor financial decisions. They bought too big of a house or too expensive of a car, or something like that. Their income could be dependent on a job, but I wouldn't say that precludes them from being upper class.

I wouldn't say they are wealthy or mega rich, but I think saying they are middle class is laughable. You could make an argument that 250k is the absolute upper range of high middle class, but saying that 250k is solid middle class is incredibly condescending to people who make much less than that and actually are middle class. If 250k is solid middle class, what is lower class? Where does middle class begin?

Anyone who thinks 250k is at all upper class is completely out of touch. Realize we're talking household income, so at that point you're punishing any married couple composed of two working professionals that are doing well for themselves. Again,living in just such a household, thats bs. Between student loans, bills, utilities, home repairs, etc. while we aren't struggling to make ends meet, we aren't well to do either, and its definitely not because my family can't manage its money (we carry next to no credit card debt for example, and our house is actually smaller than most other people we know in the same income bracket). They've been talking about selling the house for a while, this will no doubt make that real.

500k per year household, ok now we're talking, but 250k should be what we strive for, thats pretty solidly middle class. Now, if we're talking 250k per year as INDIVIDUAL income then its a different story. But household? You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.

What kind of money worries would someone with a 250k income realistically have? Deciding to skip vacation this year so they can pay for all of their child's college tuition?


I seriously want to know. What kind of real money worries would someone with a 250k income have to deal with that aren't caused by bad money management?

 Hordini wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
What does Upper Class mean to you exactly?

I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class

I'm sorry, but if a person making 250k is struggling to make ends meet, they're doing something wrong. They have most likely made a poor financial decision or a series of poor financial decisions. They bought too big of a house or too expensive of a car, or something like that. Their income could be dependent on a job, but I wouldn't say that precludes them from being upper class.

I wouldn't say they are wealthy or mega rich, but I think saying they are middle class is laughable. You could make an argument that 250k is the absolute upper range of high middle class, but saying that 250k is solid middle class is incredibly condescending to people who make much less than that and actually are middle class. If 250k is solid middle class, what is lower class? Where does middle class begin?

It also depends on where you live... in DC, NY and LA, 250k is definately mid-class...

In mid-west, that's definately upper mid-class.

But this bill will hurt with the small business owners.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Anyone who thinks 250k is at all upper class is completely out of touch. Realize we're talking household income, so at that point you're punishing any married couple composed of two working professionals that are doing well for themselves. Again,living in just such a household, thats bs. Between student loans, bills, utilities, home repairs, etc. while we aren't struggling to make ends meet, we aren't well to do either, and its definitely not because my family can't manage its money (we carry next to no credit card debt for example, and our house is actually smaller than most other people we know in the same income bracket). They've been talking about selling the house for a while, this will no doubt make that real.

500k per year household, ok now we're talking, but 250k should be what we strive for, thats pretty solidly middle class.

I realize we're talking about household income.

So basically, you don't have to worry about money. I'm not saying it's wealthy or mega rich, but it's not middle class. I don't think you realize how much better that situation is than what the majority of Americans have to deal with.

Where does middle class begin?

 Hordini wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.

What kind of money worries would someone with a 250k income realistically have? Deciding to skip vacation this year so they can pay for all of their child's college tuition?


I seriously want to know. What kind of real money worries would someone with a 250k income have to deal with that aren't caused by bad money management?

Are you serious? Youre embarassing yourself kid. I havent been out of the country in like 8 years, and the last vacation I took was tobSeattle out of my own savings, and i have 60k in college debt and im from a 250k per year household.

To me middle class doesnt begin until 100k. Im currently making 40k per year as a recent college grad, and im just making ends meet with all kf my pwrsonal bills despite living with my parents. Doing the math, I wouldnt be able to get my own place (w a roommate) until 65k, my own place solo until 80k. Figure an extra 20 for buffer and thats middle for a SINGLE person, and id say lower for a family of four.

 d-usa wrote:
Besides, if I recall correctly households over $250,000 would pay the exact same rate on the first $250,000 under the senate bill already passed. Only income over $250,000 would be taxed at the higher rate. So if you make $300,000 you would pay the higher rate on $50,000.

I think that's worth quoting and repeating. I'm absolutely shocked at how many people I talk to about taxes/politics have no idea how our tax system works. Hell, one time I was listening to a local radio station that had a special "Talk politics" week going--and I ended up calling in. During the call, the radio host actually asked "Well, if he's going to raise taxes on people that make over 250,000 why would I ever want to make more than 249,999--I'd lose money!". Yep, really.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.

What kind of money worries would someone with a 250k income realistically have? Deciding to skip vacation this year so they can pay for all of their child's college tuition?


I seriously want to know. What kind of real money worries would someone with a 250k income have to deal with that aren't caused by bad money management?

Are you serious? Youre embarassing yourself kid. I havent been out of the country in like 8 years, and the last vacation I took was tobSeattle out of my own savings, and i have 60k in college debt and im from a 250k per year household.

You still haven't answered my question. I seriously want to know. When you say you're from a 250k household, does that mean you and your spouse make 250k, or your parents make 250k? Because that's two different things as well.

I did answer it. Go read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact that you even think my college tuition could be paid in full over 4 years by my family at 250k per year is frankly insulting. Thats 50k per year, let alone the fact that they have their own college loans to pay off still, plus the house, plus food for the family, home heating oil, electricity, water, property taxes, 2 cars (both used Honda's hardly the Mercedes Benz and Cadillac you seem to be expecting), insurance bills, and so on and so forth. Yeah they can put away some money for savings but you're cracked out if you think they could afford college tuition for one kid, let alone two.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I did answer it. Go read.

Excuse me for reading it and beginning my post before you finished editing it.



Middle class doesn't begin until 100k for a single person? I get that it varies based on location, but that seems absolutely insane to me as a starting point for middle class. Most households I know don't bring in anywhere near 100k a year and still manage to pay bills, including student loan debt.


If you live in a super expensive area, then I could see how you could have trouble with what would be middle class elsewhere. I really don't think I'm the one who's out of touch here, and I'm certainly not embarrassing myself.

$250k is quite a lot. It's a lot higher than what most UK couples earn even on good wages, and the cost of living is generally lower in the US, as are most of your taxes. I don't have much sympathy.

I wouldnt consider it super expensive, this is average for New Jersey (which is super expensive compared to most simply due to our ridiculously high property taxes), regardless though you are out of touch and embarrassing yourself, as you seem to not have any concept of money beyond your own little slice of America, either that or the entire East Coast seems to be rolling in money and fiscally irresponsible people.

Howard, my condolences, but I find that the comparison is difficult to make across national boundaries. My family in the Dominican Republic makes about as much as my parents and have a much much higher standard of living more comparable to that of a millionaire.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I did answer it. Go read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact that you even think my college tuition could be paid in full over 4 years by my family at 250k per year is frankly insulting. Thats 50k per year, let alone the fact that they have their own college loans to pay off still, plus the house, plus food for the family, home heating oil, electricity, water, property taxes, 2 cars (both used Honda's hardly the Mercedes Benz and Cadillac you seem to be expecting), insurance bills, and so on and so forth. Yeah they can put away some money for savings but you're cracked out if you think they could afford college tuition for one kid, let alone two.

Did you go to a private school? If you pay 50k a year, you still have 200k a year to live on, which is still a hell of a lot more than most families have. Like, four times as much.

Yes, private school indeed. I suppose I could gone to county college if any of them offered a degree in engineering, but id be making half as much as I am now (if I could find a job at all).

You also seem to be missing the fact that the 250k is before taxes, so really it works out more like 160k per year, and thats not all disposable, in fact very little of it is. How old are you and what is your household income if I may ask?

chaos0xomega wrote:
I wouldnt consider it super expensive, this is average for New Jersey (which is super expensive compared to most simply due to our ridiculously high property taxes), regardless though you are out of touch and embarrassing yourself, as you seem to not have any concept of money beyond your own little slice of America, either that or the entire East Coast seems to be rolling in money and fiscally irresponsible people.

Howard, my condolences, but I find that the comparison is difficult to make across national boundaries. My family in the Dominican Republic makes about as much as my parents and have a much much higher standard of living more comparable to that of a millionaire.

My parents combined earn 100k a year and that was just recently, after years of promotions. They still managed to buy a house with 10 acres and a lake, and raise a family of four. They live in Illinois about 50 mins from St. Louis. But it just sounds like your family is doing it wrong.