Forgive my student loan!

tquig

I would prefer more education for those recieving the loans. I asked several times over, "what can i expect as a monthly payment after i graduate?" they never gave me an answer. I was never informed about the compounded interest rates, the fact that they would not request payments that were reasonable to my income, or the fact that they just plain lie and tell you while your in school "sure you can consolidate your loans with us for one easy payment!" then after you leave they they say "oh im sorry because of the loans you took out, your credit is bad so you cant consolidate your loans please pay us half your gross monthly income." I have been chased clear across the country trying to find a job that will cover what i owe. still havent found one. now due to the interest i owe 3 times what i borrowed. That is predatory lending. they shuck and jive while you dig yourself a hole and blame you for believing what they told you to sell it.

No i dont want loan forgiveness, i want loans with REASON.

I was also not informed about compounded interest and the interest rates on my student loans are higher than the ones on my credit cards! (Note-I use my credit cards responsibly and don't carry a balance.) They also don't tell you they capitalize the interest, so my 14,000 sallie mae loan is actually going to be 22,000.

You were not informed or you didn't understand the information they provided to you? There is a big difference. Not trying to pick a fight, but it would be illegal for them not to provide that info.

Bahet

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

tquig

I haven't read every single post, and I understand how economics work, but I just want to make sure everyone understands what the bill says. It isn't "good job for going to college forget about those silly loans" it's a 10/10 plan. Under the plan, those with student loan debt will pay 10% of their income towards their loan for 10 years. So if someone graduates and starts out making 40K a year they will only pay 4k towards their loans that year. If they go up to making 60K their payments will rise as well. Many people will pay their whole loan back. The problem is that right now repayments are based on percentage of loan amount so unfortunately new graduates are making their biggest (minimum you can always pay more) payments when they are just starting off and most likely making the least they will make.

The issue is that this only works if 10% of the individual's annual income over 10 yrs equals the loan amount. What happens if they have a tremendous loan debt for a degree in basket weaving? They won't have put a dent in the principle, even if there was no interest. We haven't helped the country, as some have claimed, by supporting an individual's perceived 'right' to an education.

The only way to make this work would be to set the repayment terms based upon the realistic earning potential for a degree. There is certainly a large amount of data available to base this upon. In other words, if the average salary for an entry level engineer is $40K, they might get 10 yrs to repay it. If you pick a degree with less earnings potential, you pay it over a longer period. It might make people rethink their education strategies.

On a side note, when I was in grad school at Syracuse University (Go Orange) I regularly heard students say they were only in grad school because they had little luck finding a job so this allowed them to defer their loan repayment- so getting more debt to avoid paying your debt makes sense how?

callmeBAM

How about the govt get OUT of the loan business. Private markets would handle this much better.

And why do you think tuition goes up every year? Because the schools know they govt will pay for it silly!
If the schools were dealing with banks that need to make a profit, the banks would not allow those rates to go up, or the would give out less loans, which supply and demand would cause the tuition to come back down eventually.

Artificial markets always come back to bite you in the *kitten*.

callmeBAM

I would also be for elimination school loans for arts and other "pointless" degrees where the graduate ends up delivering pizza. and yes, I have LOTS of friends who got degrees in vocal performance and theater, yada yada. Only 2 actually use their degree now, and that is b/c they are public school teachers. the rest are eternally underemployed or doing some menial task like office admin.

tquig

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

1- true, but it is very frustrating to make more but receive less. When my income moved my family into a higher tax bracket it cost me money. The extra income I made that barely raised me to the next level resulted in my net income being lower (man were we looking for deductions) 2- huge generalization depending upon your definition of rich (lets assume you mean millionares, not billionares). the vast majority of "rich" people own small business or invest in smaller companies, 3- this is like someone's grade analogy- you got a 100 on your test but we are going to lower it to a 70 and give your points to the kid that slept in class and only got a 40. Thanks for your hard work and effort!

kayteesb

My $0.02
Student loan debt is not bad. You have to adjust your lifestyle to make ends meet and student loans are included. I wouldn't be so harsh to say that anyone with student loan debt who is struggling to pay for it bit off more than they could chew. I'm inlcined to believe that circumstances change...life happens...and we adjust.
Call your lenders and work with them on paying your student loans back. Most are more than willign to work out payment arrangements you can afford. Also, seek the help of a financial strategist who will help you modify your finances so that you are able to pay the debt.
Loan forgiveness is usually offered and available to those who get into a transactional agreement with the government - work at a specific school or school system for a number of years in order to have the loan forgiven. There are other methods too so do your research. Nonetheless, forgiveness has to be researched and negotiated appropriately.
Be well.

BullDozier

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

Your comments show your class warfare bias.

I'd assume explaining how the wealthy create jobs through consumption and investment would fall on deaf ears unfortunately.

BullDozier

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

1- true, but it is very frustrating to make more but receive less. When my income moved my family into a higher tax bracket it cost me money. The extra income I made that barely raised me to the next level resulted in my net income being lower (man were we looking for deductions) 2- huge generalization depending upon your definition of rich (lets assume you mean millionares, not billionares). the vast majority of "rich" people own small business or invest in smaller companies, 3- this is like someone's grade analogy- you got a 100 on your test but we are going to lower it to a 70 and give your points to the kid that slept in class and only got a 40. Thanks for your hard work and effort!

All things being equal, when you earn more money and are moved to a higher income bracket, it does not result in lower take home pay. That's not how marginal tax rates work.

aiwich

The feeling of entitlement! Wow.

I went to a public University in WI costing roughly $10,000/year (without housing, etc). My parents paid precisely zero. I did not qualify for assistance other than Unsubsidized Stafford Loans.

I took those loans, I worked full-time throughout the school year and summers. I worked year round, I went to school year round. I also worked in High School to save - concept.

Upon graduation at the age of 21, I got a job paying in the $20K range, started paying back my student loans and living "small." Within two years I tripled my income through hard work and dedication.

I bought my first house at the age of 23.

I am now 35, continue my career path, a single mom, have zero debt, zero credit cards, and a 10 year old car, and a crappy lil' house to live in.

My point?? I don't owe you *kitten* if you can't pay your own student loans.

:drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :flowerforyou:

Rhea30

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

Your comments show your class warfare bias.

I'd assume explaining how the wealthy create jobs through consumption and investment would fall on deaf ears unfortunately.

Consumption doesn't create jobs in the US anymore, its creating jobs in other countries. Production has moved overseas and stores are moving overseas.

Bahet

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

1- true, but it is very frustrating to make more but receive less. When my income moved my family into a higher tax bracket it cost me money. The extra income I made that barely raised me to the next level resulted in my net income being lower (man were we looking for deductions) 2- huge generalization depending upon your definition of rich (lets assume you mean millionares, not billionares). the vast majority of "rich" people own small business or invest in smaller companies, 3- this is like someone's grade analogy- you got a 100 on your test but we are going to lower it to a 70 and give your points to the kid that slept in class and only got a 40. Thanks for your hard work and effort!

That's not how tax brackets work. There is no way you made more and took home less simply because of your tax rate. Now if you paid off you home so you no longer itemized, didn't contribute to a traditional IRA so didn't have that deduction, had less employee business expenses, no longer paid daycare, etc that MIGHT make a difference. Otherwise no.

Let's say that $50,000 is the income demarkation line for moving from a 10% to a 20% bracket. (just using simple numbers for ease of understanding. Those aren't actual bracket numbers or percentages.) If you make $49,999 you pay $5000 in taxes. If you get a raise to $55,000 you don't pay $11,000 in taxes. You pay that $5000 on the income up to $50,000 then an additional $1000 (20% of $5000) for the raise to total $$6000. You still come out ahead.

Bahet

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

Your comments show your class warfare bias.

I'd assume explaining how the wealthy create jobs through consumption and investment would fall on deaf ears unfortunately.

Huh? How is it class warfare to want a rich person to pay the SAME as a middle class person but NOT class warfare for a rich person to want the middle class to pay MORE than them? If I say "White people should get to pay 10% lower taxes than black people." I can't imagine anyone saying that's not racist. But if I say "White people should pay the same tax rate as black people." how is that racist? It's the exact same concept. Just replace white with rich and black with middle class.

doorki

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

Your comments show your class warfare bias.

I'd assume explaining how the wealthy create jobs through consumption and investment would fall on deaf ears unfortunately.

Consumption doesn't create jobs in the US anymore, its creating jobs in other countries. Production has moved overseas and stores are moving overseas.

Actually, Chinese companies are off shoring some of their production to the US.

SlimSammy2012

RESPONSIBILITY! You agreed to pay for a service (College, Higher Learning) so pay it back responsibly. Took me two years to pay off my loans including the the last two years of it being Unemployed at the age of 52.

Pay your bills!

jnh17

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

1- true, but it is very frustrating to make more but receive less. When my income moved my family into a higher tax bracket it cost me money. The extra income I made that barely raised me to the next level resulted in my net income being lower (man were we looking for deductions) 2- huge generalization depending upon your definition of rich (lets assume you mean millionares, not billionares). the vast majority of "rich" people own small business or invest in smaller companies, 3- this is like someone's grade analogy- you got a 100 on your test but we are going to lower it to a 70 and give your points to the kid that slept in class and only got a 40. Thanks for your hard work and effort!

That's not how tax brackets work. There is no way you made more and took home less simply because of your tax rate. Now if you paid off you home so you no longer itemized, didn't contribute to a traditional IRA so didn't have that deduction, had less employee business expenses, no longer paid daycare, etc that MIGHT make a difference. Otherwise no.

Let's say that $50,000 is the income demarkation line for moving from a 10% to a 20% bracket. (just using simple numbers for ease of understanding. Those aren't actual bracket numbers or percentages.) If you make $49,999 you pay $5000 in taxes. If you get a raise to $55,000 you don't pay $11,000 in taxes. You pay that $5000 on the income up to $50,000 then an additional $1000 (20% of $5000) for the raise to total $$6000. You still come out ahead.

Your exemptions and deductions start getting phased out after a certain level of income -- and trust me, it isn't just "rich" people at this level of income. Just like many others have said, 250,000 in a rural, low cost of living area is like a million in an urban, higher cost of living area -- yet they both pay the same in taxes. I paid in 29k in taxes this year and I am not exactly blowing my nose with benjamins.

angryguy77

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

This whole "they don't pay their fair share" is nonsense. The rich often derive their income from investments. Ever hear of capital gains? There is a difference between income and CG tax rates. The rich pay less taxes on CG because a lower tax rate on investments encourages people to take the risk. More investment helps the economy and creates more revenue for the IRS-thats a fact. You are being fooled by these class warfare politicians into thinking the rich somehow are getting a free ride.

You should also know that when income tax rates are increased, the small business owner is hit also because business income is also counted as personal income in many cases.

If the gov said it was going to take 70% of your wages(as had been the case in the past) would you put in the work necessary to make more money? I have no doubt that tax rates would return to those levels if a certain party was in control. What's the point of working hard when the gov will take most of it and shell it out to deadbeats? But I'll concede your point because purchasing a lottery ticket is just as hard as putting in decades of hard work to achieve a goal.

As for companies moving out, did you ever stop to wonder why they are going overseas? It just might have a lot to do with over regulation/taxation.

Bahet

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

This whole "they don't pay their fair share" is nonsense. Ever hear of capital gains? There is a difference between income and CG tax rates. The rich pay less taxes on CG because a lower tax rate on investments encourages people to take the risk. More investment helps the economy and creates more revenue for the IRS-thats a fact.

You should also know that when income tax rates are increased, the small business owner is hit also because business income is also counted as personal income in many cases.

If the gov said it was going to take 70% of your wages(as had been the case in the past) would you put in the work necessary to make more money? I have no doubt that tax rates would return to those levels if a certain party was in control. What's the point of working hard when the gov will take most of it and shell it out to deadbeats? But I'll concede your point because purchasing a lottery ticket is just as hard as putting in decades of hard work to achieve a goal.

As for companies moving out, did you ever stop to wonder why they are going overseas? It just might have a lot to do with over regulation/taxation.

70% is ridiculous. I'll absolutely agree there. But what's so wrong about expecting Mitt Romney to be in the same tax bracket as you and me?

FTR, I have heard of capital gains as I have worked in finance for 20 years and own a tax prep/financial advising business. I am more than well aware of what small businesses pay in taxes as well as the deductions they can claim.

angryguy77

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

This whole "they don't pay their fair share" is nonsense. Ever hear of capital gains? There is a difference between income and CG tax rates. The rich pay less taxes on CG because a lower tax rate on investments encourages people to take the risk. More investment helps the economy and creates more revenue for the IRS-thats a fact.

You should also know that when income tax rates are increased, the small business owner is hit also because business income is also counted as personal income in many cases.

If the gov said it was going to take 70% of your wages(as had been the case in the past) would you put in the work necessary to make more money? I have no doubt that tax rates would return to those levels if a certain party was in control. What's the point of working hard when the gov will take most of it and shell it out to deadbeats? But I'll concede your point because purchasing a lottery ticket is just as hard as putting in decades of hard work to achieve a goal.

As for companies moving out, did you ever stop to wonder why they are going overseas? It just might have a lot to do with over regulation/taxation.

70% is ridiculous. I'll absolutely agree there. But what's so wrong about expecting Mitt Romney to be in the same tax bracket as you and me?

FTR, I have heard of capital gains as I have worked in finance for 20 years and own a tax prep/financial advising business. I am more than well aware of what small businesses pay in taxes as well as the deductions they can claim.

Mitt would pay the same amount as you or I if he took an income, but like Buffett, he takes income from investments. We want the people with money to invest for obvious reasons. Investing your money is risky business as I'm sure you know given your career. If the risk outweighs the reward, investment will drop and the economy will suffer as a result. If you are going to invest your money, would you invest in an oversees market that will allow you to keep more of your return, or in one that will take a greater chunk if it? I think the rates on cap gains should be less than they are now.

Bahet

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

1- true, but it is very frustrating to make more but receive less. When my income moved my family into a higher tax bracket it cost me money. The extra income I made that barely raised me to the next level resulted in my net income being lower (man were we looking for deductions) 2- huge generalization depending upon your definition of rich (lets assume you mean millionares, not billionares). the vast majority of "rich" people own small business or invest in smaller companies, 3- this is like someone's grade analogy- you got a 100 on your test but we are going to lower it to a 70 and give your points to the kid that slept in class and only got a 40. Thanks for your hard work and effort!

That's not how tax brackets work. There is no way you made more and took home less simply because of your tax rate. Now if you paid off you home so you no longer itemized, didn't contribute to a traditional IRA so didn't have that deduction, had less employee business expenses, no longer paid daycare, etc that MIGHT make a difference. Otherwise no.

Let's say that $50,000 is the income demarkation line for moving from a 10% to a 20% bracket. (just using simple numbers for ease of understanding. Those aren't actual bracket numbers or percentages.) If you make $49,999 you pay $5000 in taxes. If you get a raise to $55,000 you don't pay $11,000 in taxes. You pay that $5000 on the income up to $50,000 then an additional $1000 (20% of $5000) for the raise to total $$6000. You still come out ahead.

Your exemptions and deductions start getting phased out after a certain level of income -- and trust me, it isn't just "rich" people at this level of income. Just like many others have said, 250,000 in a rural, low cost of living area is like a million in an urban, higher cost of living area -- yet they both pay the same in taxes. I paid in 29k in taxes this year and I am not exactly blowing my nose with benjamins.

If you paid $29,000 in federal income tax then either you are doing better than the vast majority of Americans, had absolutely no deductions or dependents, and/or had an idiot prepare your taxes.

Bahet

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

This whole "they don't pay their fair share" is nonsense. Ever hear of capital gains? There is a difference between income and CG tax rates. The rich pay less taxes on CG because a lower tax rate on investments encourages people to take the risk. More investment helps the economy and creates more revenue for the IRS-thats a fact.

You should also know that when income tax rates are increased, the small business owner is hit also because business income is also counted as personal income in many cases.

If the gov said it was going to take 70% of your wages(as had been the case in the past) would you put in the work necessary to make more money? I have no doubt that tax rates would return to those levels if a certain party was in control. What's the point of working hard when the gov will take most of it and shell it out to deadbeats? But I'll concede your point because purchasing a lottery ticket is just as hard as putting in decades of hard work to achieve a goal.

As for companies moving out, did you ever stop to wonder why they are going overseas? It just might have a lot to do with over regulation/taxation.

70% is ridiculous. I'll absolutely agree there. But what's so wrong about expecting Mitt Romney to be in the same tax bracket as you and me?

FTR, I have heard of capital gains as I have worked in finance for 20 years and own a tax prep/financial advising business. I am more than well aware of what small businesses pay in taxes as well as the deductions they can claim.

Mitt would pay the same amount as you or I if he took an income, but like Buffett, he takes income from investments. We want the people with money to invest for obvious reasons. Investing your money is risky business as I'm sure you know given your career. If the risk outweighs the reward, investment will drop and the economy will suffer as a result. If you are going to invest your money, would you invest in an oversees market that will allow you to keep more of your return, or in one that will take a greater chunk if it? I think the rates on cap gains should be less than they are now.

Do you really think if Romney paid 20% instead of 13% he'd say "Screw this!", pull his money out of the market, and stuff it under the mattress instead? Then instead of keeping 80% of his profits he has no profits at all. How does that make sense? (hint - it doesn't and it wouldn't happen.)

BullDozier

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

Your comments show your class warfare bias.

I'd assume explaining how the wealthy create jobs through consumption and investment would fall on deaf ears unfortunately.

Consumption doesn't create jobs in the US anymore, its creating jobs in other countries. Production has moved overseas and stores are moving overseas.

Sweep generalizations generally aren't useful in a productive debate. Of course consumption creates jobs. There are plenty of products manufactured in the United States, and even products manufactured in other countries need to be shipped and sold in the US. Someone has to do that, right?

hikezilla

Grandma Pyle always said, "If you're going to buy something stupid, then don't don't borrow the money to do it."

Learn a trade kids. Own your destiny.

BullDozier

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

Your comments show your class warfare bias.

I'd assume explaining how the wealthy create jobs through consumption and investment would fall on deaf ears unfortunately.

Huh? How is it class warfare to want a rich person to pay the SAME as a middle class person but NOT class warfare for a rich person to want the middle class to pay MORE than them? If I say "White people should get to pay 10% lower taxes than black people." I can't imagine anyone saying that's not racist. But if I say "White people should pay the same tax rate as black people." how is that racist? It's the exact same concept. Just replace white with rich and black with middle class.

It's class warfare to making sweeping claims that the "rich" not only don't create jobs, but ship them overseas while small businesses create all the jobs. That's a patently false claim that shows a bias, jealousy, class warfare sentiment, call it whatever you want.

I agree with you that everyone should pay their fair share, but there is no universal truth to what everyone's fair share is.

tquig

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

1- true, but it is very frustrating to make more but receive less. When my income moved my family into a higher tax bracket it cost me money. The extra income I made that barely raised me to the next level resulted in my net income being lower (man were we looking for deductions) 2- huge generalization depending upon your definition of rich (lets assume you mean millionares, not billionares). the vast majority of "rich" people own small business or invest in smaller companies, 3- this is like someone's grade analogy- you got a 100 on your test but we are going to lower it to a 70 and give your points to the kid that slept in class and only got a 40. Thanks for your hard work and effort!

That's not how tax brackets work. There is no way you made more and took home less simply because of your tax rate. Now if you paid off you home so you no longer itemized, didn't contribute to a traditional IRA so didn't have that deduction, had less employee business expenses, no longer paid daycare, etc that MIGHT make a difference. Otherwise no.

Let's say that $50,000 is the income demarkation line for moving from a 10% to a 20% bracket. (just using simple numbers for ease of understanding. Those aren't actual bracket numbers or percentages.) If you make $49,999 you pay $5000 in taxes. If you get a raise to $55,000 you don't pay $11,000 in taxes. You pay that $5000 on the income up to $50,000 then an additional $1000 (20% of $5000) for the raise to total $$6000. You still come out ahead.

Your exemptions and deductions start getting phased out after a certain level of income -- and trust me, it isn't just "rich" people at this level of income. Just like many others have said, 250,000 in a rural, low cost of living area is like a million in an urban, higher cost of living area -- yet they both pay the same in taxes. I paid in 29k in taxes this year and I am not exactly blowing my nose with benjamins.

This ^

tquig

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

This whole "they don't pay their fair share" is nonsense. Ever hear of capital gains? There is a difference between income and CG tax rates. The rich pay less taxes on CG because a lower tax rate on investments encourages people to take the risk. More investment helps the economy and creates more revenue for the IRS-thats a fact.

You should also know that when income tax rates are increased, the small business owner is hit also because business income is also counted as personal income in many cases.

If the gov said it was going to take 70% of your wages(as had been the case in the past) would you put in the work necessary to make more money? I have no doubt that tax rates would return to those levels if a certain party was in control. What's the point of working hard when the gov will take most of it and shell it out to deadbeats? But I'll concede your point because purchasing a lottery ticket is just as hard as putting in decades of hard work to achieve a goal.

As for companies moving out, did you ever stop to wonder why they are going overseas? It just might have a lot to do with over regulation/taxation.

70% is ridiculous. I'll absolutely agree there. But what's so wrong about expecting Mitt Romney to be in the same tax bracket as you and me?

FTR, I have heard of capital gains as I have worked in finance for 20 years and own a tax prep/financial advising business. I am more than well aware of what small businesses pay in taxes as well as the deductions they can claim.

I knew the Mitt comment was bound to come out. He doesn't pay any less taxes on earned income than anyone else. He gets no special "rich people" tax discount, regardless what the media tries to say. He pays lower taxes on investment income, just like we would if we made our incomes from investments. Don't listen to the liberal media and think they are telling the truth. They have clearly tried to slant this issue by not providing the whole story.

angryguy77

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

This whole "they don't pay their fair share" is nonsense. Ever hear of capital gains? There is a difference between income and CG tax rates. The rich pay less taxes on CG because a lower tax rate on investments encourages people to take the risk. More investment helps the economy and creates more revenue for the IRS-thats a fact.

You should also know that when income tax rates are increased, the small business owner is hit also because business income is also counted as personal income in many cases.

If the gov said it was going to take 70% of your wages(as had been the case in the past) would you put in the work necessary to make more money? I have no doubt that tax rates would return to those levels if a certain party was in control. What's the point of working hard when the gov will take most of it and shell it out to deadbeats? But I'll concede your point because purchasing a lottery ticket is just as hard as putting in decades of hard work to achieve a goal.

As for companies moving out, did you ever stop to wonder why they are going overseas? It just might have a lot to do with over regulation/taxation.

70% is ridiculous. I'll absolutely agree there. But what's so wrong about expecting Mitt Romney to be in the same tax bracket as you and me?

FTR, I have heard of capital gains as I have worked in finance for 20 years and own a tax prep/financial advising business. I am more than well aware of what small businesses pay in taxes as well as the deductions they can claim.

Mitt would pay the same amount as you or I if he took an income, but like Buffett, he takes income from investments. We want the people with money to invest for obvious reasons. Investing your money is risky business as I'm sure you know given your career. If the risk outweighs the reward, investment will drop and the economy will suffer as a result. If you are going to invest your money, would you invest in an oversees market that will allow you to keep more of your return, or in one that will take a greater chunk if it? I think the rates on cap gains should be less than they are now.

Do you really think if Romney paid 20% instead of 13% he'd say "Screw this!", pull his money out of the market, and stuff it under the mattress instead? Then instead of keeping 80% of his profits he has no profits at all. How does that make sense? (hint - it doesn't and it wouldn't happen.)

7% is a big difference, so I do believe that it would affect investments. You're looking at it as though these guys lose money and say "no big deal." I don't know of anyone who has money who wouldn't look at risk vs reward when they're making financial decisions. They play the markets for money, not fun. Beside
Besides, it's an historical fact that more money comes into the treasury when cap gains are low, raising them would do more harm than good.

Also, there are other places they can invest as well, the US market isn't the only place they have to go.

Rhea30

Here's a thought, how about we demand the gov institutes an actual pro-growth jobs agenda and abandon it 'spread the wealth around" ideology instead of asking for our loans to be forgiven? That way, people find work and can afford their loan payments.

Instead of demonizing the rich, the gov should encourage people to become wealthy because they are the one who create the jobs. Or we could just tax the rich into oblivion and kill the incentive to better ones' self.

Oh where to even begin. 1st, the rich won't be taxed into oblivion by having them pay the same rate as the middle class. 2nd, they aren't the ones who create job. They are the ones who send jobs overseas. It's small business owners who create jobs. 3rd, even if they paid higher taxes than the middle class do you honestly think that would kill the incentive to get rich? that's a bit like saying "I don't want to win the lottery because then I'll have to pay taxes on it." You still end up WAY ahead.

Your comments show your class warfare bias.

I'd assume explaining how the wealthy create jobs through consumption and investment would fall on deaf ears unfortunately.

Huh? How is it class warfare to want a rich person to pay the SAME as a middle class person but NOT class warfare for a rich person to want the middle class to pay MORE than them? If I say "White people should get to pay 10% lower taxes than black people." I can't imagine anyone saying that's not racist. But if I say "White people should pay the same tax rate as black people." how is that racist? It's the exact same concept. Just replace white with rich and black with middle class.

It's class warfare to making sweeping claims that the "rich" not only don't create jobs, but ship them overseas while small businesses create all the jobs. That's a patently false claim that shows a bias, jealousy, class warfare sentiment, call it whatever you want.

I agree with you that everyone should pay their fair share, but there is no universal truth to what everyone's fair share is.

Its not class warfare and its not false, its simply stating the truth. Many of the companies have made quite the profit but still haven't created jobs with it. They do not care about creating jobs, they just care about lining their own pockets as quickly as they can. I'm glad I'll never be jealous of someone who is making millions from exploitation of humans; sweatshops but I guess in your world those don't exist either?

BullDozier

Its not class warfare and its not false, its simply stating the truth. Many of the companies have made quite the profit but still haven't created jobs with it. They do not care about creating jobs, they just care about lining their own pockets as quickly as they can. I'm glad I'll never be jealous of someone who is making millions from exploitation of humans; sweatshops but I guess in your world those don't exist either?

Well, if sweeping generalizations are what qualify as "truth" in your world, there really isn't a point in continuing this line of discussion.

Bahet

7% is a big difference, so I do believe that it would affect investments. You're looking at it as though these guys lose money and say "no big deal." I don't know of anyone who has money who wouldn't look at risk vs reward when they're making financial decisions. They play the markets for money, not fun. Beside
Besides, it's an historical fact that more money comes into the treasury when cap gains are low, raising them would do more harm than good.

Also, there are other places they can invest as well, the US market isn't the only place they have to go.

They don't pay tax on what they have invested. They pay tax on the profit made off those investments. If Romney has $100,000 invested and makes no profit, he pays no tax. And rightfully so. If he makes 10% profit right now he'd be paying 13% of that $10,000 profit for a total of $1300. If he is taxed at 20% it goes up to $2000. $700 out of every $10,000 profit (profit, not total invested) is not going to affect whether or not thy invest. It's still a MUCH better place than under the mattress.

Where did you get that "historical fact" from?

As for your comment that "the US market isn't the only place they have to go" well you are showing your ignorance of finances and the law now. It is illegal for an American to invest in other countries and hide that money from the IRS. It still has to be claimed. If foreign taxes were paid those can be written off but as long as they are Americans they still have to declare it as income here.