Would you be affected by proposed taxes on incomes of $97,000 or more per year?

How many here in DU are part of the group targetted by Obama regarding Social Security taxes? This group, namely those earning an income of $97000 a year or more, has been subject of debate between the Clinton and Obama fields as to whether or not they can be called part of the "middle class".

Let's find out how many among us would be affected by this proposal. Is your income below or above this level? (individual, not joint).

I wouldn't be affected, maybe 4...........it's been a bad year.

zalinda

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the figure is for individuals.

Way, way below. This a good poll question. Thanks.

:shrug:

who are getting tooooo old according to some.

gobama?

I was expecting more earlier, from the start several months ago, but got disappointed. I understand how things work, so I get what he is doing. He seems to be stepping it up a bit now. My husband, the Libertarian attorney, loves him (even though he "shouldn't").

I wish all of them would get along better, more constructively. I want to hear very specific comparisons of policy issues, item by item.

With the war going on it's hard to rank my issues, because that soooooo totally dominates ANYTHING else that can or will happen. It **has to be** my number one issue. Next to that I want to hear things about Voting Reform, specifically, I personally hope to steer my activities toward support of paper ballots, counted in public, on a National Voting Holiday.

Think!! how much everyone would LOVE it. WHO!!!! could be against such a thing???

It's a winner across the board.

those who wish to suppress/distort the vote would have to make themselves known to the general public.

We could have a very detailed public discussion about elections in the country.

Jointly above.

It's a real dispute between folks who accept the RW framing of America having no working class, and those who properly recognize that America does have a working class.

If America has no working class then the "middle class" starts right above the poverty line and includes almost everyone.

If, however, you accept the existence of an American working class then we can deduce the nature of the middle class this way:

The middle class is above the poor. (a big group)

The middle class is above the working class. (a big group)

The middle class is below the rich. (a tiny group)

Looked at that way, the middle class is not average or median (as some assume from the word "middle"), the middle class is way above average, with vast numbers of people below and tiny numbers of people above.

A sociology textbook will tell you that the American middle class starts at about the median income level (I think that's somewhere between $40K-$50K) and goes up well into the 100s.

Many reject that formal description because it runs counter to our programming that everyone in America who isn't starving is middle class. That's a RW myth perpetuated to keep workers content and consuming, and to drive a wedge between the working class and the poor.

So does Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

Is it some psychological problem these people have?

I am not rich, but I've never been greedy. I see greed as a form of mental illness.

Taken to an extreme form, the trait leads to a moral and ethical bankruptcy which is a type of
mental illness akin to social sociopathy.

That's why I avoid shopping at Wal-Mart, Wegman's, The Gap and their umbrella stores like Old Navy
and avoid drinking Gallo wine (which is crap, anyway, so that's easy! lol). These families and ten
more are funding a multi-billion dollar lobbying campaign to eliminate the estate tax permanently.

"We" have all been saved, don't you know? God loves you. ALL is forgiven! Just believe and do what you want, because acts are not essential to salvation anyway. All of us "Christians" are headed to a better place. Daddy-God is going to show up any day now and take us out of this particular nest that we have so thoroughly SHIT in and we're going somewhere where HE will give us even more stuff that we want. Jesus suffered so we don't have to. There are no consequences for what you do, because we have super-amazing-holy-kali-fractile-istic expeealidotious grace. Haven't you heard the good news? Your errors aren't your fault. Sin?

Have you sent up your revival tent yet?

I belong to the Church-with-no-walls now.

You are damned good, though. lol

:thumbsup:

I was raised in a big family.

I am enchanted with the "Gestalt": The Whole IS greater than the sum of its parts.

NGU!

I don't mind paying taxes. They're our dues for being members of society. Just like all those people who make sure to pay their club dues every year, we make sure to pay our taxes so we can get the full benefits of membership. :)

Divide and conquer, same as it ever was.

wage income. They pay capital gains, and that is only if they sell capital.

in cost of living and related higher income in high cost of living areas.

Republican congressional reps use this difference as leverage to help rich avoid taxes. They are doing this now with refusal to vote to amend the alternative minimum tax (which unfairly slams middle class in high cost of living cities) unless it is tied to tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy.

My Republican husband is above the 97K figure. We both support raising the cap.

is this the final amount one is taxed on or your actual gross salary?

I think we would get a few more votes if the people who take home less than $300,000 weren't hit by large taxes.

Note how the number of those earning $97,000 has been edging up as time progresses. IF these numbers were honest, then DU'ers are mega-rich compared to the rest of the US populations. Data finds that 19% of American households earn over 100000, but a higher number of DU'ers somehow have found a way to earn that much individually. LOL.

$97K is a nice chunk of change, any way you slice it.

If I was affected by it I would be shy about objecting, but since I am not...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3734011

97,000 is not that much in NY. Especially when you consider real estate. $97,000 is actually kind of low anywhere. No one is "wealthy" making $97K, especially when you add in kids.

Probably could raise my deferments to get under.

But even so, my spouse and I jointly make less than $97k. We do well, I think, due in large part to having very good health insurance, no debt (other than home mortgage), paid for cars (older but well cared for), and we don't spend like crazy. I am retired and have money in bonds which provide income that is reliable, if not dazzling. I guess I just don't have the lifestyle that is considered normal. I really don't care...

I have been on the other side of the cap at times. (Great pay, lousy job.) I was always in favor of raising the cap.

That's barely middle class here.

or in a negative way, because we have to pay taxes?

with John Edwards's "donut hole" proposal. His proposal is that it should stay the way it is now and then have an income gap where no one is taxed and then have it start at say $200K. I live out in California where an income of $97,000.00 will put you at barely middle class for a family of 4. The median home price is close to 1MM and everything, everything averages far higher than anywhere in the nation. So if Edward's plan was put in place with this "donut hole", it would still provide for more income to provide for Social Security without affecting many of the middle class families who couldn't be considered wealthy.

In reality, all of the 14.2% is paid by the employer and ultimately it is paid by those that purchase the employer's goods or services. If the tax is increased to 250K or even 750K, the cost will eventually fall to the employer and then to the consumer.