EPT![[image loading]](http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/26/doma_tax_hike_marriage_equality_will_raise_taxes/marriage%20penalty.png.CROP.article568-large.png)
Heh. Honestly, I don't see cause for alarm. The difference in quality of life is pretty negligible for those brackets in which DOMA changes anything. I won't weep for the lucky couple who has their 800k reduced to a mere 450k.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 306
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
Heh. Honestly, I don't see cause for alarm. The difference in quality of life is pretty negligible for those brackets in which DOMA changes anything. I won't weep for the lucky couple who has their 800k reduced to a mere 450k. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
So separately, if you had two people who each earned $200k, if they had to file separately, they would each pay 28% taxes, or $56k, for a total of $112k. Filing as married, their household income would be $400k and they would pay the 35% rate, for a total of $140k. $28k is not a negligible loss, even for a family in the top 2% or so. We'll have to see how it plays out. I think gay couples will be punished because they will have a higher proportion of two-income families. It would be humorous if gay advocates fought all this time for Democrats to win marriage equality, and now that they have it, they switch sides to the tax-cutting Republicans. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:26 coverpunch wrote: You're reading the chart incorrectly, although it is poorly labeled. The "lucky couple" doesn't have their income reduced from $800k to $450k, their income threshold for entering the 39.6% bracket falls from $800k as individuals to $450k as a married couple. So separately, if you had two people who each earned $200k, if they had to file separately, they would each pay 28% taxes, or $56k, for a total of $112k. Filing separately, their household income would be $400k and they would pay the 35% rate, for a total of $140k. We'll have to see how it plays out. I think gay couples will be punished because they will have a higher proportion of two-income families. It would be humorous if gay advocates fought all this time for Democrats to win marriage equality, and now that they have it, they switch sides to the tax-cutting Republicans. Ya, just like once the Democrats passed the Civil Rights act all those religious and socially consevative blacks switched to the party of god | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:26 coverpunch wrote: You're reading the chart incorrectly, although it is poorly labeled. The "lucky couple" doesn't have their income reduced from $800k to $450k, their income threshold for entering the 39.6% bracket falls from $800k as individuals to $450k as a married couple. So separately, if you had two people who each earned $200k, if they had to file separately, they would each pay 28% taxes, or $56k, for a total of $112k. Filing as married, their household income would be $400k and they would pay the 35% rate, for a total of $140k. $28k is not a negligible loss, even for a family in the top 2% or so. We'll have to see how it plays out. I think gay couples will be punished because they will have a higher proportion of two-income families. It would be humorous if gay advocates fought all this time for Democrats to win marriage equality, and now that they have it, they switch sides to the tax-cutting Republicans. I don't even understand why your tax rate goes up because you're married. It's not like you've fused into one person... | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:43 Roe wrote: I don't even understand why your tax rate goes up because you're married. It's not like you've fused into one person... You fuse into one family. Tax benefits for married couples take the old-fashioned view that you will have one person that works and one person that stays at home. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:43 Roe wrote: I don't even understand why your tax rate goes up because you're married. It's not like you've fused into one person... That's only if you compare it to if you were both single. Being married carries some assumptions, like shared living expenses and "starting a family" (however you want to classify that). This insinuates one spouse doesn't have to work, or can work much less. Especially at higher incomes, there's a question about utility of that income as well, and a very small chance both partners would have high incomes. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:38 Sub40APM wrote: Ya, just like once the Democrats passed the Civil Rights act all those religious and socially consevative blacks switched to the party of god | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On June 27 2013 07:02 aksfjh wrote: I see it as a front to obstruct voting access. I would prefer to get as many people to vote as possible, which I think should be a common goal between parties. Get more people to vote, and while doing so, maybe you can get them to vote for you. Any push to restrict this is seen, by me particularly, as an outright admittance that you cannot convince more people to vote for you and your positions are unpopular. You would rather shrink the voting pie in your favor instead of growing it. Other than your first sentence I think you're right. I think both parties should want both (a) reasonable, fair precautions against voter fraud; and (b) as much (legitimate) electoral participation as possible. I really don't understand how either of these objectives is controversial. I guess people just like to argue about the details... | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:38 Sub40APM wrote: Ya, just like once the Democrats passed the Civil Rights act all those religious and socially consevative blacks switched to the party of god Blame Nixon/Goldwater I agree with voter ID in principle, then again I also agree with college financial aid in principle. In practice, they don't work and end up screwing over a lot of people. My family's income went up and my financial aid went down because we sold off some assets to pay for tuition, rofl. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:04 kwizach wrote: I was referring to the verbal arguments, yes. His comparison was extremely unprofessional since it clearly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the issue he was supposed to have been studying for quite some time. I wasn't talking about the opinion of the court. The originally quoted text was talking about court opinions. In my own analysis of where I stood on "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius," I thought it a fair question to ask where Congress's taxation authority stopped. You may object to broccoli as the trial case, but sugary drinks are just a stone throw's away. Robert's meandering justifications were very abstruse. In fact, the court asked for arguments to be made about where the justification stood in Congress's penalty powers long before it ruled it a tax and not a penalty. In light of shifting justifications (none more numerous than Verilli arguing penalty one day and tax the next), I think the question was very germane. What goods or services can Congress monitor payment and tax if not purchased? I wrote at length on this on the original thread. I remain unpersuaded that there is some clear line between the purchase or nonpurchase of health insurance and the purchase of nonpurchase of other goods and services that falls within Congressional taxation powers under the Constitution (capitation tax, excise tax, income tax). | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 27 2013 11:06 ziggurat wrote: Other than your first sentence I think you're right. I think both parties should want both (a) reasonable, fair precautions against voter fraud; and (b) as much (legitimate) electoral participation as possible. I really don't understand how either of these objectives is controversial. I guess people just like to argue about the details... When voter fraud by impersonation is (almost?) nonexistent, but voter turnout is abysmally low, doing something to "fix" the former at the cost of the latter seems dubious at best. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.thestreet.com/tsc/nielson/040212/image001.jpg) Using the year 2000 as the numerical base from which to "zero" all of the numbers, real wages peaked in 1970 at around $20/hour. Today the average worker makes $8.50/hour -- more than 57% less than in 1970. And since the average wage directly determines the standard of living of our society, we can see that the average standard of living in the U.S. has plummeted by over 57% over a span of 40 years. There are no "tricks" here. Indeed, all of the tricks are used by our governments. The green line shows average wages, discounted by inflation calculated with the same methodology for all 40 years. Obviously that is the only way in which we can compare any data over time: through applying identical parameters to it each year. Then we have the blue line: showing wage data discounted with our "official" inflation rate. The problem? The methodology used by our governments to calculate inflation in 1975 was different from the method they used in 1985, which was different than the method they used in 1995, which was different than the method they used in 2005. Source Senate leaders traded barbs Wednesday after a potential bipartisan deal to avert a student loan interest rate spike was shot down by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who said it wouldn't pass. Rates are set to double for millions of students on Monday from 3.4 to 6.8 percent if no action is taken. "There is no deal on student loans that can pass the Senate because Republicans continue to insist that we reduce the deficit on the backs of students and middle-class families, instead of closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest Americans and big corporations," Reid's spokesman Adam Jentleson said. "Democrats continue to work in good faith to reach a compromise but Republicans refuse to give on this critical point." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) spokesman fired back. "Sadly, the Democrat leadership continues to block bipartisan student loan reform by attacking the President’s plan. As a result of their obstruction, interest rates on some new student loans will increase next week," said Don Stewart. "Why Senate Democrats continue to attack the President’s plan is a mystery to me, but I hope he’s able to persuade them to join our bipartisan effort to assist students." Meanwhile, discussions are continuing behind the scenes, just five days before the spike. Source | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
Yea, shadowstats is kinda bullshit. I trust things from the government and studies like billion price index more. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
I will give the article some points for pointing out the dangers of inflation and especially the shifting methods of measuring it as well as pointing out tangentially that globalization is putting downward pressure on wages in the US. There's a hat tip to income inequality but I give no credit because there is no attempt to find a cause or a solution to it. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 27 2013 13:37 coverpunch wrote: Oh, there are far bigger whoppers if you read the entire article. It concludes with advocating a flat tax, shorter work weeks, and protectionism with a hint of trust-busting. I will give the article some points for pointing out the dangers of inflation and especially the shifting methods of measuring it as well as pointing out tangentially that globalization is putting downward pressure on wages in the US. There's a hat tip to income inequality but I give no credit because there is no attempt to find a cause or a solution to it. Anybody that takes shadowstats seriously most likely doesn't see anything wrong with income inequality, or think it's because the government WANTS income inequality to happen and is fostering it deliberately. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Supreme Court is putting congressional Republicans in a bind — again. A Republican Party eager to talk about what it considers President Barack Obama’s misguided coal policy, rising energy costs, soon-to-double student loan rates and a spate of scandals both foreign and domestic, will be forced instead to spend its last few days in Washington before the July 4 recess caught in the vortex of historic legal decisions on minority voters and the propriety of same-sex marriage. The GOP can’t seem to outrun the culture wars. Last summer, the high court threw Speaker John Boehner’s House onto uncomfortable ground when it ruled that Obama’s health care law was legal in the midst of political campaigns to win back the White House and keep the majority. When the Supreme Court hands down a ruling on same-sex marriage Wednesday, GOP leaders will be caught between the party’s social conservatives who are loudly anti-gay marriage and lawmakers looking to adapt to a rapidly shifting American electorate that’s more comfortable with gay couples. Tuesday’s Voting Rights Act ruling showed how discombobulated the party is. Boehner was dead silent on the issue. Many Republicans privately said that nothing will get done this Congress to rewrite the law. Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), who chairs a committee that oversees election administration, said she respects the decision. The Voting Rights Act was not discussed at a closed meeting of House GOP leadership Tuesday evening. Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, called the Voting Rights Act “pretty technical” and pertinent to only “a limited number of states.” Source | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
Yes, the Democrats who passed the Civil Rights Act in the 60s were exactly the same as the guys who destroyed reconstruction. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 27 2013 14:20 Sub40APM wrote: Yes, the Democrats who passed the Civil Rights Act in the 60s were exactly the same as the guys who destroyed reconstruction. Fun fact...historically the names "Democrats" and "Republicans" have swapped parties several times, with several transitional names in between. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Speaking at Georgetown University on Tuesday afternoon, President Barack Obama outlined a highly anticipated collection of new and expanded initiatives aimed at curbing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and addressing global warming -- from tougher fuel-economy rules for vehicles and expanded use of renewable energy, to improved efficiency requirements for both buildings and household appliances. But perhaps the most historic -- and almost certainly the most contentious of the president's proposals -- involved new greenhouse gas emissions limits for the nation's existing fleet of power plants. In the absence of congressional action on climate change, and using his existing authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the federal Clean Air Act, Obama said he would call on the Environmental Protection Agency to develop new rules that would curb carbon dioxide emissions from the hundreds of operating coal and gas-fired electricity generators around the country. The call for emissions limits on existing power plants comes on the heels of tougher standards being developed by the EPA for the construction of new plants, first proposed during Obama's first term. The administration aims to have the rules for new plants in place later this year. Emissions limits for the existing fleet may be proposed by June 2014, with a goal of finalizing them by 2015. Whether those timelines will be met, however, is far from clear, not least because the sort of add-on technologies and systems that would allow the largest polluters to capture their greenhouse gas emissions and safely store them, for the most part, remain wildly expensive and untested on a commercial scale. As such, critics of the president's agenda -- including many advocates for coal-fired power plants, which produce the largest share of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector -- have vowed to file legal challenges to measures they say would effectively strangle their industry and drive electricity costs skyward. "We're not going to let the president wipe out the coal industry," declared Tim Phillips, president of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, during a press conference ahead of Obama's speech Tuesday. Source | ||
|
Deleted User 45971
533 Posts
Krugman made a short blog post about this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/aggregate-supply-aggregate-demand-and-coal/ | ||
| ||
