#26
Posted: 1/17/13 at 12:40pm
Had he been elected, Romney had no stated intention of extending the payroll tax holiday.
WOOHOO!! I am RICH (according to Obama)!! — Page 2
#27
Posted: 1/17/13 at 12:52pm
I hope you're not expecting a response from Mikey about any of this.
#28
Posted: 1/17/13 at 1:00pm
#29
Posted: 1/17/13 at 1:05pm
Look at how everyone has such a profound case of the sadz!
It's like they were all at a screening of Schindler's List!
It's like they were all at a screening of Schindler's List!
#30
Posted: 1/17/13 at 1:06pm
It's tough out there raising 2 kids on only a quarter of a million dollars!
#31
Posted: 1/17/13 at 1:08pm
Especially when your tax burden goes up by a whole $3+ K.
And don't you love how the rich ones have a brood that just looks HUNGRY because $650,000 is just not enough!
And don't you love how the rich ones have a brood that just looks HUNGRY because $650,000 is just not enough!
#32
Posted: 1/17/13 at 1:19pm
Single and making 230k a year? I'm trying to be compassionate here. Where are the figures for the people living in THE REAL WORLD.
#33
Posted: 1/17/13 at 1:24pm
The WSJ is practicing some masterful manipulation of thy data.
The income tax is progressive- if you make more, you pay more (both as a percentage and in total). FICA (your SS tax) is, oddly enough REGRESSIVE- the poor pay more proportionally than the rich. You pay 6% of your income BUT only the first $60,000 of EARNED INCOME is taxed. So if you make $60K you pay $3600. If you make $100K, you pay $3600. And if you have a trust fund that pays you $60K a year in dividends, you pay $0. Is it a coincidence that the republican party fought tooth and nail to preserve a tax break for the wealthiest Americans and insisted this break for the regular folks expire? You tell me.
The income tax is progressive- if you make more, you pay more (both as a percentage and in total). FICA (your SS tax) is, oddly enough REGRESSIVE- the poor pay more proportionally than the rich. You pay 6% of your income BUT only the first $60,000 of EARNED INCOME is taxed. So if you make $60K you pay $3600. If you make $100K, you pay $3600. And if you have a trust fund that pays you $60K a year in dividends, you pay $0. Is it a coincidence that the republican party fought tooth and nail to preserve a tax break for the wealthiest Americans and insisted this break for the regular folks expire? You tell me.
#34
Posted: 1/17/13 at 1:52pm
Just to be clear. I'm not hating on the pretty Asian girl making the 230k a year. She's truly blessed to be earning that kind of income. But I would like to know how these "increases" are affecting a single mother of 2 with a yearly income of $70,000.
#35
Posted: 1/17/13 at 2:02pm
I looked at it again- the WSJ is (surprise) incorrect.
The "retired" couple is apparently working since they made $180K and only $52K was investment income- if so they would be paying that extra $3600 in FICA (maybe more if both are working- since these cases are made up it's hard to tell where that $128K came from.
The "retired" couple is apparently working since they made $180K and only $52K was investment income- if so they would be paying that extra $3600 in FICA (maybe more if both are working- since these cases are made up it's hard to tell where that $128K came from.
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
