For those of you who for some odd reason don’t follow my every move on Facebook, here’s some of my favorites from this week.

If you haven’t signed this petition telling Governor Deal to remove Phil Kent from his immigration enforcement review board, you should sign it now.

If you want to read 14 ways a 90% tax rate would fix our country, this guy has 14 just for you.  If you tragically missed the Republican debate this week, here’s a good recap.  Lowndes County Democrats Chair Gretchen Quarterman had a nice review of Jack Kingston’s green tongue.

In the world of crazy, Rush Limbaugh is apparently okay with giant corporations paying no American taxes, as long as they paid taxes to other countries…  And the one that really made the rounds this week, a GOP operative talks about why he left the cult.

 

23 Responses to Facebook Recap and Open Thread

  1. JMPrince says:

    Missed a cite on that one above. See here for ‘Growth of High Income TaxPayers’ by the Tax Foundation: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/27558.html

    Ga. is one of the bottom 10 here. And the Tax Foundation posits $200K + as ‘High Income’, which is pretty sensible here as well. JMP

  2. JMPrince says:

    A yearly income of $1.6M is the break point for entering into the top 1% of income. Ergo if you’re in or approaching oh the top ~.5% of all earners, you’re pretty rich, Anywhere. There’s lots of charts & tables that can get you there too. JMP

  3. wini says:

    Whoops!??? Is this some Repug cult blog? 2 Million not much money to people in NY?
    I thought everyone would be laughing at the recap of the Repug debate. You depressed because you only have or earn a couple of million?? Then read the http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/08/what-you-missed-while-not-watching-last-nights-reagan-library-gop-debate/ and laugh your head off.

  4. JMPrince says:

    Doing it better may not need a return to 90% top rates for the highest incomes:
    http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-golden-laws-of-prosperity/

    Some simple yet seemingly obscure Laws For Prosperity for your National economy by Ian Welsh. Not all would apply perfectly, but enough sure would help plenty. JMP

  5. JMPrince says:

    My bit early this past week for the Cartersville Patch: ‘Rick Perry, the Other Texas Miracle’:
    http://cartersville.patch.com/articles/the-other-texas-miracle-rick-perry

    So that arrived before the debate. Which they’re still arguing about. JMP

  6. Jen B. says:

    “If you want to read 14 ways a 90% tax rate would fix our country, this guy has 14 just for you.”

    Are you serious with this?

    • Trevor Southerland says:

      Well, I mean, he has 14 ways. Not 15 or 13, so if you were looking for 15 or 13, he’s not your guy… but 14, he’s your guy!

      But towards your actual question, I did not indicate if I agreed or disagreed with it.

    • EGaluszka says:

      Depending on how the brackets are structured, a 90% top marginal rate isn’t that far-fetched. Most people making in excess of $2 mil a year are mostly dumping it into capital gains anyway.

      • Ed says:

        Yeah because anyone making $2 million or more is “rich”.

        • EGaluszka says:

          Yes, Ed. Anyone making $2 million in one year is rich.

          • Trevor Southerland says:

            Yeah, where I come from if you made over $100K a year, you were considered rich… hell, most people considered anyone who made over $50K or $60K to be rich.

            • Ed says:

              If you were given $2 million dollars today you would still have to go into work on Monday and every day after that. Sorry, that’s not rich. They aren’t hurting but it is disingenuous to do the whole “millionaires and billionaires” thing.

              • Trevor Southerland says:

                1) I believe Eddy is talking about yearly salaries, not one time pay outs.

                2) You’re wrong. If you’re smart, you could retire on $2 Million right now. Of course, some people are morons.

                3) The majority of Americans won’t make $2 Million in their lifetimes.

              • Ed says:

                Just to break this down conservatively… $2 million, depending how it is acquired you would lose at absolute minimum very conservatively, $500k to taxes.

                The average consumer debt in America is $15k.

                The average house in Atlanta cost $322k in 2006. That year is important for many reasons but let’s say it was a smart consumer and has $200k in mortgage.

                In 2007 the average auto debt was $30k with loans steadily increasing for the past decade.

                Students now have on average 24K in student loans.

                If you’re smart you’d pay those off for easy math $275k. So you’re already down to $1m, if going by outdated averages and with conservative tax rates.

                You could just dump it into a savings account which would give you a few decades on the average U.S. salary but that’s a) a poor use of money b) not a good QofL c) barely anything if you’re even a family of four in a place like NYC, DC etc d) not taking into account any sort of financial planning you want to do, any extraneous expenditures and that you want to not move up in SES.

                And considering how awful Americans are with money, $1m would be squandered in a year, no problem.

                • Trevor Southerland says:

                  Oh, okay, I didn’t realize everything was based off of New York or Atlanta standards. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

                  On behalf of those of us not from Atlanta, New York and other huge cities, I’m sorry.

                • EGaluszka says:

                  We’re talking about a tax on income, Ed, not wealth. If we cannot target someone’s income in developing a progressive tax structure, how do you propose we do so without penalizing people who save their money over a long period of time and build wealth? There is really no other option, and you’re clouding the issue by pretending it’s a common occurrence to be handed $2 million in one year and not make any money ever again.

                  • JMPrince says:

                    One Ed is using outdated numbers, and in anyone’s universe an Income of $2M a year Is Rich. Even in NYC. But since we’re only allowed one cite, perhaps we might start here too:
                    AB does ‘Define Rich’ for you:

                    http://www.angrybearblog.com/search/label/define%20rich

                    It’s a 3 part series, Enjoy. JMP

                  • Ed says:

                    My point is that $2m is not as much money as you think it is and a VERY low bar for being “rich”.

                    • Trevor Southerland says:

                      Just to clarify here, are you saying someone who makes $2 million per year should not be considered “rich?”

                      Or have you gotten confused and think we’re talking about some weird tax structure where you’re only taxed once per life based on your total net worth and not yearly based on income?

  7. MelGX says:

    Here’s one more, for those who are wondering about the Georgia jobs program President Obama mentioned in his speech:

    http://www.wrdw.com/news/headlines/Georgia_jobs_program_may_get_national_push_129425683.html?ref=683

  8. griftdrift says:

    Well at least you don’t just go half way on the tax rates.