Record Gas Prices . .

[husserl]

You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."

who do you think is proposing anything like this?

Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich.  My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."

Nope.  Mr/Mrs 250k would pay at the same rate as under Bush.  Mr/Mrs 251k would pay like 30 bucks extra or whatever.  whoop-dee-doo.

[TheHamburglar]

You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."

who do you think is proposing anything like this?

Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich.  My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."

Nope.  Mr/Mrs 250k would pay at the same rate as under Bush.  Mr/Mrs 251k would pay like 30 bucks extra or whatever.  whoop-dee-doo.

Who the eff told barborugby to bring his Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) rough ridin' schtick over here?

[michigancat]

I don't mind high gas prices.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't mind high gas prices.

I seriously only spend about $30 per month on gas, but I can see where current prices could cause serious problems with a lot of Americans. They are a concern.

[steve dave]

gas should cost MUCH more than it does now

[8manpick]

I don't mind high gas prices.

I seriously only spend about $30 per month on gas, but I can see where current prices could cause serious problems with a lot of Americans. They are a concern.

No

gas should cost MUCH more than it does now

this

[Rage Against the McKee]

gas should cost MUCH more than it does now

How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?

[husserl]

You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."

who do you think is proposing anything like this?

Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich.  My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."

Nope.  Mr/Mrs 250k would pay at the same rate as under Bush.  Mr/Mrs 251k would pay like 30 bucks extra or whatever.  whoop-dee-doo.

Who the eff told barborugby to bring his Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) rough ridin' schtick over here?

No clue what that means.  Hope I helped with the confusion though. 

[ednksu]

A rich person, >1million annually lets say, isn't going to need an extra bit of money to make another purchase.  They aren't going to need that money to hire another person at a small business.  The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job.  That is going to be based off supply and demand of the economy.  All those tax cuts have done is bleed away valuable tax receipts from the Federal government.

You use >1million to define rich, but right now the political landscape sets the "rich" line at 250K.  Tax levels on small business owners whose income tax says they make this much (but actually take home significantly less) do have a significant impact on their ability to hire additional people on the job and the motivation to hire additional people. You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."

You're also looking at it wrong with "The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job."  It's not about needing the money to hire that person or not, it's about if hiring that person gives them a net benefit.  If you raise taxes on them, you lower the take home pay each employee provides to the business owner.  You can make the arguement as to whether they "need" the money or not, their "need" of the money has zero impact on their business decisions.  You may think this is the way business owners should work, buy no tax law changes will change how they actually operate/think.

the 250k mark is the top of middle class, not the start of rich. Obama has even said as much, that heavier taxation wouldn't kick in until 7 figures. 

I'm not sure i agree with you on real versus on paper income for those small business owners.  Even a very modest accountant will know enough to shield income and assets that are used for the operation of a small business.  Good accountants like MittBot has are going to make your tax rate 17% or less. 

To the point about the rich person hiring a beneficial person, you just indicted the Bush tax cuts as a waste of time.   A rich person isn't going to wait for a Bush tax cut to make a hiring decision.  That is the absurdity of supply side economics as the modern Republicans have envisioned them.  This last depression cut a huge swath through the middle class but did nothing to  really hurt the richest of the rich.  Giving them more money isn't going to help things as much as MittBot and Ryan want to convince you otherwise.  It has NEVER worked that way in history and there are multiple eras where it has been tried.  Arguably a payroll tax reduction does spur  hiring because it makes the cost of having an employee cheaper.  So the only real impact on the owners than are wages and possible benefits.  Which in theory would be paid for by increased sales or more sprockets produced, or more 'X' being done.  Taxes wouldn't be recovered in the same way.

[TheHamburglar]

You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."

who do you think is proposing anything like this?

Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich.  My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."

Nope.  Mr/Mrs 250k would pay at the same rate as under Bush.  Mr/Mrs 251k would pay like 30 bucks extra or whatever.  whoop-dee-doo.

Who the eff told barborugby to bring his Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) rough ridin' schtick over here?

No clue what that means.  Hope I helped with the confusion though.

It means you take one line out of entire posts and try to go down a rabbit hole with that one line rather than reply to what the discussion is actually about.  Its rough ridin' annoying.  If you are going to get into the discussion, come back with an actual answer/rebuttal like ednksu did.

[EMAWesome]

A rich person, >1million annually lets say, isn't going to need an extra bit of money to make another purchase.  They aren't going to need that money to hire another person at a small business.  The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job.  That is going to be based off supply and demand of the economy.  All those tax cuts have done is bleed away valuable tax receipts from the Federal government.

You use >1million to define rich, but right now the political landscape sets the "rich" line at 250K.  Tax levels on small business owners whose income tax says they make this much (but actually take home significantly less) do have a significant impact on their ability to hire additional people on the job and the motivation to hire additional people. You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."

You're also looking at it wrong with "The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job."  It's not about needing the money to hire that person or not, it's about if hiring that person gives them a net benefit.  If you raise taxes on them, you lower the take home pay each employee provides to the business owner.  You can make the arguement as to whether they "need" the money or not, their "need" of the money has zero impact on their business decisions.  You may think this is the way business owners should work, buy no tax law changes will change how they actually operate/think.

the 250k mark is the top of middle class, not the start of rich. Obama has even said as much, that heavier taxation wouldn't kick in until 7 figures. 

I'm not sure i agree with you on real versus on paper income for those small business owners.  Even a very modest accountant will know enough to shield income and assets that are used for the operation of a small business.  Good accountants like MittBot has are going to make your tax rate 17% or less. 

To the point about the rich person hiring a beneficial person, you just indicted the Bush tax cuts as a waste of time.   A rich person isn't going to wait for a Bush tax cut to make a hiring decision.  That is the absurdity of supply side economics as the modern Republicans have envisioned them.  This last depression cut a huge swath through the middle class but did nothing to  really hurt the richest of the rich.  Giving them more money isn't going to help things as much as MittBot and Ryan want to convince you otherwise.  It has NEVER worked that way in history and there are multiple eras where it has been tried.  Arguably a payroll tax reduction does spur  hiring because it makes the cost of having an employee cheaper.  So the only real impact on the owners than are wages and possible benefits.  Which in theory would be paid for by increased sales or more sprockets produced, or more 'X' being done.  Taxes wouldn't be recovered in the same way.

ednksu killed it with this post.

Prez Pimp Clinton killed it when he summed up the Republican theme in Tampa, "Basically they are blaming Obama for not cleaning up the big mess they left him with fast enough."

[Stupid Fitz]

gas should cost MUCH more than it does now

How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?

I am curious about this as well.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

gas should cost MUCH more than it does now

How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?

I am curious about this as well.

High gas prices only hurt the poor and cause the price of everything to increase. Most poor people can't afford to live close to where they work in urban areas or places like California.

[p1k3]

inflation

[TheHamburglar]

the 250k mark is the top of middle class, not the start of rich. Obama has even said as much, that heavier taxation wouldn't kick in until 7 figures. 

I'm not sure i agree with you on real versus on paper income for those small business owners.  Even a very modest accountant will know enough to shield income and assets that are used for the operation of a small business.  Good accountants like MittBot has are going to make your tax rate 17% or less. 

To the point about the rich person hiring a beneficial person, you just indicted the Bush tax cuts as a waste of time.   A rich person isn't going to wait for a Bush tax cut to make a hiring decision.  That is the absurdity of supply side economics as the modern Republicans have envisioned them.  This last depression cut a huge swath through the middle class but did nothing to  really hurt the richest of the rich.  Giving them more money isn't going to help things as much as MittBot and Ryan want to convince you otherwise.  It has NEVER worked that way in history and there are multiple eras where it has been tried.  Arguably a payroll tax reduction does spur  hiring because it makes the cost of having an employee cheaper.  So the only real impact on the owners than are wages and possible benefits.  Which in theory would be paid for by increased sales or more sprockets produced, or more 'X' being done.  Taxes wouldn't be recovered in the same way.

If 250K is the top of the middle class, but not the start of the rich, what are the people from 250K-999K?  How can heavier taxation not kick in until $1MM if the tax cuts for earnings from $250K to $999K are going away?  Multiple dems have said multiple times that they want to raise taxes on the rich by doing away with the tax cuts above $250K. 

On the paper vs. actual income for small business owners, I know it's there because I've seen it on multiple tax returns.  Also, your statement on MittBot having a 17% tax rate has nothing to do with small business owners.  MittBot is driving his down with a large percentage of his income being taxed at a lower capital gains tax.  This has a much, much smaller affect on small business owners.  I agree with some of what you said on the Bush tax cuts, but they were needed at the time to get people spending again.  That's a different issue than why they are around now (buying votes, neither side wanted a deal made prior to the election).  Back to my original statement, if you want to raise taxes on them because you think they need to pay more taxes, fine.  You can think that.  The only thing is you can't say "they have millions, they'll pay for their people anyway" because that's not how they think.  Are keeping the Bush tax cuts a good, long term plan for employeement, no.  Will there be no negative effect if they expire because "those guys have millions, they'll pay anyway", no.  There will be a short term affect.  Also, you missed the biggest impact on small business owners, rising healthcare costs. 

[EMAWesome]

gas should cost MUCH more than it does now

How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?

I am curious about this as well.

I think what he is saying is that since the supply is at or at least near Peak Oil, the price will eventually be exponentially higher...if it is raised in stages in an attempt stave off demand, and promote new technology, it may prevent the sudden panic when it is officially announced that we have reached Peak Oil, and the price of everything petroleum based skyrockets.

In my opinion, new technology is going to advance much slower if gas prices remain 'reasonable'

[sonofdaxjones]

Really is sad to see so many on here willing to wage war on the poor.

Sad, sad, sad

[Rage Against the McKee]

gas should cost MUCH more than it does now

How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?

I am curious about this as well.

I think what he is saying is that since the supply is at or at least near Peak Oil, the price will eventually be exponentially higher...if it is raised in stages in an attempt stave off demand, and promote new technology, it may prevent the sudden panic when it is officially announced that we have reached Peak Oil, and the price of everything petroleum based skyrockets.

In my opinion, new technology is going to advance much slower if gas prices remain 'reasonable'

The market sets the price. Oil should not cost more now just because the price will have to eventually be higher.

[TheHamburglar]

gas should cost MUCH more than it does now

How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?

I am curious about this as well.

I think what he is saying is that since the supply is at or at least near Peak Oil, the price will eventually be exponentially higher...if it is raised in stages in an attempt stave off demand, and promote new technology, it may prevent the sudden panic when it is officially announced that we have reached Peak Oil, and the price of everything petroleum based skyrockets.

In my opinion, new technology is going to advance much slower if gas prices remain 'reasonable'

The market sets the price. Oil should not cost more now just because the price will have to eventually be higher.

Yeah it should.  If a barrel of crude is $97 dollars now, but is expected to go up to $160 a barrel, the price will rise.  Major downstream consumers will start trying to set up collars on their oil futures with midstream suppliers to hedge against the expected $160 barrel price, trying to get collars below that.  As they start to buy futures, at say $130, midstream suppliers will start to cut their current supplies and buy up more crude to up their reserves so they have more inventory to sell at $130 in the future while purchasing it at a lower cost now.  This will start to eat away current supply from the midstream, driving up prices now for downstream.  Plus their will be a higher demand from midstream producers for base crude, thus driving up the cost of crude now, thus raising prices all the way through the stream even more.

You are right that the market sets the prices, but part of that whole market is the futures market, which drives up price within the whole market based on anticipation that eventually prices will be higher. 

[sonofdaxjones]

There's a lot of explaining going here . . . market factors, "what it should be", and various blatherings about this or that.

No, no, no . . . using political history as our guide, the price of gas at the pump is purely an issue derived from the Executive branch of our government.

Accordingly and based on the reality of record prices at pump. . . Barry W. Obama . . . friend to Big Oil.

Barry W. Obama . . . owned by big oil.

[steve dave]

There's a lot of explaining going here . . . market factors, "what it should be", and various blatherings about this or that.

No, no, no . . . using political history as our guide, the price of gas at the pump is purely an issue derived from the Executive branch of our government.

Accordingly and based on the reality of record prices at pump. . . Barry W. Obama . . . friend to Big Oil.

Barry W. Obama . . . owned by big oil.

sad, really

[Rage Against the McKee]

gas should cost MUCH more than it does now

How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?

I am curious about this as well.

I think what he is saying is that since the supply is at or at least near Peak Oil, the price will eventually be exponentially higher...if it is raised in stages in an attempt stave off demand, and promote new technology, it may prevent the sudden panic when it is officially announced that we have reached Peak Oil, and the price of everything petroleum based skyrockets.

In my opinion, new technology is going to advance much slower if gas prices remain 'reasonable'

The market sets the price. Oil should not cost more now just because the price will have to eventually be higher.

Yeah it should.  If a barrel of crude is $97 dollars now, but is expected to go up to $160 a barrel, the price will rise.  Major downstream consumers will start trying to set up collars on their oil futures with midstream suppliers to hedge against the expected $160 barrel price, trying to get collars below that.  As they start to buy futures, at say $130, midstream suppliers will start to cut their current supplies and buy up more crude to up their reserves so they have more inventory to sell at $130 in the future while purchasing it at a lower cost now.  This will start to eat away current supply from the midstream, driving up prices now for downstream.  Plus their will be a higher demand from midstream producers for base crude, thus driving up the cost of crude now, thus raising prices all the way through the stream even more.

You are right that the market sets the prices, but part of that whole market is the futures market, which drives up price within the whole market based on anticipation that eventually prices will be higher.

The flaw in that argument is that this is already happening, so why should prices be higher than they are now?

[EMAWesome]

There's a lot of explaining going here . . . market factors, "what it should be", and various blatherings about this or that.

No, no, no . . . using political history as our guide, the price of gas at the pump is purely an issue derived from the Executive branch of our government.

Accordingly and based on the reality of record prices at pump. . . Barry W. Obama . . . friend to Big Oil.

Barry W. Obama . . . owned by big oil.

sad, really

More like Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

[EMAWesome]

My answer to this thread

[sonofdaxjones]

Oh, I get it, now that a DEMOCRAT is in the Whitehouse the economy is "complex", gas prices are "market driven" . . . the various factors driving the economy are intricate and expansive. 

LOL