Real Estate Sales Tax to Go Into Effect 2013 HC Bill

I think some are not educated on tax. Those that make 250k and more pay alot less as they have alot more expenditures/deductions due to bieng more creative in their tax shelters and such. So No the rich don't really carry a burden of higher tax than the middle class, or poor.

You're right. Those in that highest 1.5% of income earners can afford financial planners that help them shelter their income better than those who don't. That's why the AMT / Alternative Minimum Tax was created in 1963. It was an attempt to ensure that even the ultra-rich paid their fair share. Unfortunately, the Congress didn't index the AMT rates to inflation, and more and more people are increasingly getting snared by the AMT limit. (I'm pretty sure it was the Dems that implemented it without the inflation-indexing...And I think that was dumb, and I disagree with it whole-heartedly.)

Well, LJ, I see you failed to address any points I made and simply reiterated your previous comments again. The message is it matters not what you invested to get where you are today, it only matters that you are “rich”, or “ultra rich” at this moment in time, according to some arbitrary measure. I realize this is your belief and represents your values. I do not share those with you not when I’ve worked and continue to work as hard as I have to get to this point in my life.

From my perspective, what made America great was the opportunity for someone to work hard and make something of themselves. Through a combination of individual vision, drive and investment, industries sprang up, a pursuit of excellence and goals existed all fostered by a government climate that supported such diligence. Individuals became wealthy and I suppose that is what galls some. America’s government allowed it to happen and prospered along with pioneering individuals. Today, America’s government inspires the opposite. It penalizes those who achieve for dreams of a better life. Our current government’s liberal and socialistic perspective (as you and others here espouse) stifles not only individual drives to succeed, but also that of industry. The investment of those with vision of succeeding are spat upon by those whose vision is one of utopia for everyone. This is why our industry outsources work today and tries to protect their vision and investment. Consequently, our country suffers as jobs are lost. You can legislate that companies cannot outsource work, but you cannot legislate that companies not close their doors and move out of the country all together. Review recent history to see this is true. Socialistic views (e.i. former East germany) inspire mediocrity and drive ambitious people to look elsewhere to bring their dreams and visions to reality. It is not the general populous (who may feel entitled) but exceptional self-motivated and bright individuals who are willing to take huge risks to create industry and through it jobs for all others that are entitled to the rewards.

Individuals with innovative thinking that leads to the evolution of whole new industries and thousands of new jobs will look to establish those ideas elsewhere in the world. They will seek places where their toils, sacrifices and investments are not stolen for the benefit of those who lack the requisite abilities but feel entitled to other’s rewards for their achievements. This is where I currently see America heading, that is, driving our brightest business people overseas. It’s not toward utopia. There will always be workers and leaders, not everyone is created with the same abilities like it or not. And, without those who dream and have the ability to make exceptional dreams come true, you go nowhere.

The numbers on how many of those in the top 1.5% of income brackets who actually use their "extra 3.9%" of income to actually "create jobs" has already been posted...(and as I recall it was under 2%). And while I love your "America the Beautiful"/capitalism rant, it doesn't really apply to the discussion at hand.

LJ, the self appointed thought and opinion policeperson. rofllol

With a hatred and scorn for Trickle down economics and the actual impact of it through the Clinton years, rather than give it credit for the growth we saw, the Progressives have come up with a philosophy of trickle up economics. Personally I have never been hired on a job by a poor man. If the wealth is spread, 6 months to a year later, the wealth will be right back in the hands of those willing to work hard for it, with the knowledge of how to hold on to it, how to invest it, and how to make it work for them and those that they hire.

LadyJazzer wrote: The numbers on how many of those in the top 1.5% of income brackets who actually use their "extra 3.9%" of income to actually "create jobs" has already been posted...(and as I recall it was under 2%). And while I love your "America the Beautiful"/capitalism rant, it doesn't really apply to the discussion at hand.

Oh but it does apply. If you for one moment think jobs are created in some other way, I'd be interested to entertain your explanation. The point here is that you advocate taxing extra heavily the "rich". Obviously, since you are not in that group you have no inkling of what their monetary needs are. You only have your perception and opinion on what their monetary needs are and how they ought to live their life. Yes, you have lots of opinions to justify your perspective, nothing more. All the data you cite and calculations made are based on assumptions that may or may not be valid. Assumptions are convenient ways to validate statistics.

Yes, America once was beautiful. Now it is rapidly deteriorating toward mediocrity, but my perception is that the reality of that is met by hosing your ears and sticking your head in the sand.

Excuse me, but 3.8% only on the income OVER $250,000 (which was the same rate that existed during Reagan AND Clinton's administrations), is hardly "taxing extra heavily the 'rich.'"

Your outrage is duly noted... :Whistle

(Did I mention that it was the same rate that existed during Reagan AND Clinton's administrations?)

I do not believe I'm outraged. Emotions are not part of how I consider things. i'm a scientist who deal in hard facts not emotional diatribes. Again, whether or not 3% on income over 250k does not seem like a lot until you factor in the progressive taxes paid beforehand. Once again, couch it in a favorable light rather than the reality of the whole picture. In science people who ignore data to support their view are considered dishonest.

I've got to get some sleep as I begin work at 2:30 AM. I hope you have a great day.

The "progressive taxes" paid "beforehand" are still going to be based on the tax-cuts that Bush implemented and that Obama wants to make permanent. Since we're still talking about only the 3.8% on the income OVER $250,000, I'm sorry...Tell me again where the mistreatment of the richest 1.5% is occurring?