Hellobee Boards

I'm not worried since I'm not in the 250k+ range (unfortunately). But if/when we get there, our life styles would still be the same, so a small tax hike for the earnings in that range isn't going to hurt much. I used to complain about having to pay taxes for investments and stuff, but a friend once said to me, 'as long as you're paying taxes, you've had to even MADE any money to pay taxes on so you're still coming out ahead'.

@jedeve: Exactly. I don't work 80 hours a week, but I spend 40-50 hours a week being yelled at, threatened, taken advantage of, and blamed for things that no one can control. Oh, and that doesn't include the cases I take home, where I sit on my couch and cry to my husband about how horribly some patient's family member treated me. I have multiple degrees. But no matter how many hours I work, I'll never make $250K - EVER. It's just not an option in social work. But that's ok, because I chose this path, I'm damn good at it, and I wouldn't change it for anything. So to say that someone who works 80 hours a week "works harder" than I do? Sorry, but no. It's just a different kind of "hard work."

Tax rates are currently the lowest they have ever been in the entire history of the US. THE ENTIRE HISTORY! And currently this just is not working - it's a horrible business model. Taxes are the income of the United States and under Clinton we had a balanced budget that actually paid off some of our national debt. Then taxes got lowered drastically under the Bush administration and the rates have been the same since then.

Essentially, let's pretend the US is a business. It provides a service to you (you're a customer). It costs the US $1.00 to provide that service to you. With almost all of the presidents, they charged at least $1.00 if not more. (side note: at one point in US history, the effective tax rate was 90%!) Then Bush became the boss and he said "Oh, the business I took over has money in the bank and I don't need as much money from you. I'm going to charge you $.50 for this same service." And now we've been paying $.50 for something that costs $1.00. And with Obama and trying to trim expenses, we can only cut the cost of service to $.95 so we're still losing money.

The economy has hit my household too. My husband has $170K in law school debt. He used to be in big law and we used to be in the $250k income bracket but he lost his job and we no longer are in that income bracket but still have the same debt. But I firmly believe that we need to increase tax rates - starting by closing the tax breaks that are currently in place. And it's not the whole Robin Hood idea of "take from the rich to give to the poor" because I'm in favor of adjusting tax rates for everyone. However, I'm more in favor of closing the tax breaks that seem to favor the rich.

For example: inheritances. When you die and leave an inheritance, whatever the market value is at that time becomes the new basis (or cost) to your beneficiary. If you bought a stock for $50 and on the day you die, it's worth $150. If you sold it before you died, you would be taxed on the profit of $100 so the government would get $15 (15% rate). However, if you didn't sell it and your son inherited it and sold it the next day, he wouldn't have to pay a single cent in taxes. Why? Because on the day he inherited it, the new cost to him is $150 - the market value at that time. So the government no longer gets that $15. Who does this really benefit? People with large inheritances.

Okay, this is a long spiel for a short answer - no I'm not worried about higher taxes.

P.S. Do people really decide their careers based on what potential tax rates they'll be in ? How can you do this when tax rates can change with any new president? Also, tax codes get re-written every 20-30 years....I don't want that to sound snarky or mean. I think when we're younger and choosing careers, this isn't usually one of the deciding factors.

@mrbee: I think she is saying hours don't necessarily correlate to how hard you work. Social work is a profession where you don't *want* someone to work 80 hours a week - the burnout would be too great. It also can be much more physically and emotionally taxing than a desk job (I know - I've done both!). With less financial reward at the end of the day to help compensate for those increased demands.

@T-Mom: Glad I'm not the only one! Though I'm sorry you're in the same boat as me, because sequestration is scary! I hope they figure it out soon!!

@lisa1783: Thank you for your thorough response!!! I felt it very informative and enlightening, and I agree with your assessment 100%!

While we are not in that bracket, we are close and pay a TON in taxes so yes, I am not looking forward to it.

That being said, there's not much we can do about it. I personally have an issue with labeling a family income of $250k as "rich". For many places in the country, this income level is the new middle class. Yes it's a nice paycheck but expenses are much higher too. Housing costs, daycare costs, etc. There was a great article on MSN Money I believe, that broke down a family of 4 at that income in the northeast and after commuting expenses, daycare costs, food, mortgage, retirement savings, student loans, college savings, etc that the family just about broke even. Yes, savings and some other items might be a luxury but again, it's not like this family was rolling in the dough. It's a shocking thing to think a family making $250k still has to watch expenses but it can be true, depending on where this person lives.

The thing that bugs me about tax brackets is that they're not adjusted for cost of living areas. DH and I make over 6 figures, but we live outside Boston, so it definitely doesn't go as far as it would in other areas of the country.

As a Canadian we already pay quite a bit in taxes (including 13% on most everything you buy day to day), but that being said I would still be willing to pay more taxes IF I and/or the country were getting a tangible benefit out of it (universal drugcare, universal daycare...these ideas are being tossed around now so who knows!).

So while I do lose quite a bit of my take home pay to the govt, I'm quite happy to do so even for our current benefits like Universal Healthcare, 50 weeks maternity leave, etc.

@mrbee: They are working MORE hours, but not necessarily HARDER.

@littlebug: I am not going to judge how hard someone else is working. When I work 80 hours a week, it is really hard for me. Working that many hours imposes a real physical cost on your body. It's also a sacrifice for your friends and family too.

I'm sure that doing emotionally taxing work does the same. I'm not looking to say one is harder than the other though... they both seem hard to me.

I remember a few years ago when that payroll tax cut went into effect. It was $60 more bucks in our paycheck each time, which was quite welcome. I'll miss it if it goes away, but I support taxation according to ability to pay. And I'm well able.

@littlebug: I'm not assuming that at all!

I actually said, "I'm sure that doing emotionally taxing work does the same."

@littlebug: I am really supportive of social work! I actually worked for a non-profit recently, and am really into social entrepreneurship. You're doing really important work!!

I hope things get better at work soon!!

Ugh as long as we're on debt-to-income ratio, my loans out of grad school were DOUBLE my salary. I don't know how that's relevant, it just pisses me off

@sorrycharlie: Oh geez, I didn't include interest. Boo.

@MrsCB: @sunny: I disagree that taxes should be different based on where you live. Generally your salary has already taken into account the cost of living. People in the NYC tend to make more than people in Alabama for example. Yes, a house in NYC costs more, as does everything else, but you're already being compensated for income (this is a generalization, I realize it doesn't work for everyone).

For example, my company has locations all over the USA. We also have different salaries based on location to accommodate the cost of living. So if I were to move from New England to New York, I could expect to see an increase in pay.

@blackbird: I agree! But that's how I feel about the national debt, too - my problem, I should help solve it.

@JoJoGirl: I wish I had your optimism that increased taxes = paying down national debt Unfortunately, it seems that there is always more spending than there is revenue, regardless of tax hikes. Which is why we have the national debt in the first place...