No need to apologize. You always do a great job at making your point even if I may not always agree with it. This one just got a bit long-winded and hard to track.
I will say this - (I was thinking about this on the drive to work) You mentioned about your DH buying suits of high quality because he had to "look the part".
>>However, I think if you had laid out the exact same scenario, but were now HURTING financially, you would have been criticized for the same decision.<<
And I'd be the first one in line! LOL!
Let's just say I DO NOT AGREE with the penalization of the wealthy through taxation. I believe it harms growth which harms everyone--and those at the bottom are affected the most when high income earners/employers are taxed too much.
That aside--I do know high income earners who live beyond their means...who can spend like there is no tomorrow but are "in debt up to their eyeballs" and who fail to save for unexpected emergencies like this current downturn or a layoff or illness etc....
So if jb was to claim that her lack of full tax deduction or the increase in the top rate from 35% to 39% was going to cause her to make major changes to her lifestyle or leave her unable to pay her bills--I'd most definitely suggest she rethink her budget. Nobody but nobody in that income bracket should be living that close to the edge. If you don't have backup savings at that income level then not being able to fund a $200 suit is simply not going to elicit any empathy from me.
(NOT THAT SHE DID THAT, IS DOING THAT OR EVER WILL DO THAT) Just used her as an example since you made the comment about the example she used.
Pages
Sorry. I get confused sometimes when I am "catching up" with posts.
My stuff HAS to be long winded or I get reported.
<
I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure
"Inaccurate ones?
<>
Well then, I'm sorry on more than one level.
I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obama_taxes
Thought you would find this interesting.
Not everyone who agrees with adjusting the marginal rate agrees with an additional decrease in available deductions.
That is interesting thankyou for sharing it.
ITA.
I will say this - (I was thinking about this on the drive to work) You mentioned about your DH buying suits of high quality because he had to "look the part".
>>However, I think if you had laid out the exact same scenario, but were now HURTING financially, you would have been criticized for the same decision.<<
And I'd be the first one in line! LOL!
Let's just say I DO NOT AGREE with the penalization of the wealthy through taxation. I believe it harms growth which harms everyone--and those at the bottom are affected the most when high income earners/employers are taxed too much.
That aside--I do know high income earners who live beyond their means...who can spend like there is no tomorrow but are "in debt up to their eyeballs" and who fail to save for unexpected emergencies like this current downturn or a layoff or illness etc....
So if jb was to claim that her lack of full tax deduction or the increase in the top rate from 35% to 39% was going to cause her to make major changes to her lifestyle or leave her unable to pay her bills--I'd most definitely suggest she rethink her budget. Nobody but nobody in that income bracket should be living that close to the edge. If you don't have backup savings at that income level then not being able to fund a $200 suit is simply not going to elicit any empathy from me.
(NOT THAT SHE DID THAT, IS DOING THAT OR EVER WILL DO THAT) Just used her as an example since you made the comment about the example she used.
Pages