Praise God for the Tea Partiers and Baptists.

<p>For the purposes of the Georgia Legislature, middle class is anyone with an income between $47,000 to $180,000.00.  We still don't know the final resolution of the tax changes as the Georgia legislature has a few more days to go.  They have contemplated raising the middle income definition to $60,000 for singles with our deductions phasing out between there and 68,000.  Supposedly they will raise something on the upper income scale too so those of us in the middle aren't bearing the brunt of the tax changes and having to pay several hundred or more dollars in state taxes next year.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The reason the Baptist Church got involved was because if the legislature cuts out charitable contributions for Georgia residents they are concerned about their tithes.  Obviously if the tax rate increases on Georgia residents the less money that will go into the collection plates.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Tea Party is somewhat more  concerned about the effect on middle class Georgia taxpayers but I suspect that is because most of them fall as I do, in the middle class according to the definition of the Georgia Legislature. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Normally the Democratic Party, Tea Party and Baptists are on different pages.  Politics indeed can make some strange bedfellows from time to time.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>

<p>As I remember my civics classes in high school (shortly before Sherman visited Atlanta), we have always had a "progressive" tax system - i.e. the more money one makes the more they will pay in taxes as well as more they will keep.  The 10% tax jump would indeed be a bit steep.    I think the argument in Georgia is not whether the one making $47,000 feels similar to the one making $180,000 (that's simply the Georgia Legislature determining who is middle class) but whether the middle and upper income groups are  paying our fair share of taxes. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not opposed to having to pay higher taxes (and I'm only talking about Georgia taxes here) provided the middle class isn't paying the brunt of it while the wealthier get more tax breaks for their "investments" at our expense.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Already we have seen the Georgia Legislature making the Hope Scholarship based on the lottery more expensive for the middle and lower income classes.  When the Hope Scholarship first came into being it was based on income as well as maintaining a certain grade point average.  In 1995 (or '96, I forget which) the income requirement was removed and ALL Georgia high school graduates became eligible for the scholarship.  And that was fine.  The lottery was doing very well and educational costs were under control.  Now the Hope Scholarship is having some financial difficulty so did the Legislature and Governor reinstate the income guidelines which would have protected students coming from lower and middle class families, which would have resolved the crisis?  No, they effectively made the Hope Scholarship more difficult and expensive for those groups while assisting the higher income families whose children would have gone to college even without the scholarship to benefit them.  Thus the inequities of the current Georgia Legislature and the discussion over middle vs higher income class structure.</p>
<p> </p>

<p>I don't think we are penalizing the wealthier in the least.  They would not be making their wealth if they were not able to find workers such as the middle and lower class to work for them or the things they are investing in.  Many of these workers are just as happy working for someone else (me, for one <span id="user_yui_3_3_0_8_130202606351936"><img alt="biggrin.gif" id="user_yui_3_3_0_8_130202606351935" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/biggrin.gif" style="width:16px;height:16px;">) as some business owners are at owning the business (the people I work for).  And I certainly want them to make lots of money, in part to keep me amongst others gainfully employed so we can pay our share of taxes.  At the same time I think there should be some equitable sharing when it comes to paying for various government taxes.  After all without the lower and middle class there would be no wealthy class.  So it helps to share and work with each other so that each group benefits, not just one at the expense of the others.</span></p>

<p>I still don't have a problem with the graduated income tax system.  The more money I make, good for me.  But that also means I have more responsibility to pay my fair share whether that be as a middle income or higher individual.  Shifting tax burdens to the lower income groups and/or putting the burdens on the middle class while allowing the wealthier class to continue to benefit more from tax cuts is not equitable IMHO.   What I always respected about the Kennedy's and Warren Buffington's is their willingness to extend tax burdens to their own socio-economic groups and not just the middle class. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ryan Paul is looking to cut medicare/medicaid to balance the budget.  There are ways that budget may be able to be cut, but it shouldn't be done on the backs of the elderly and disabled who struggle to make ends meet while others enjoy Ruth Chris' Steak house every night for dinner if they so desire.  Sort of like the Leona Helmsley attitude of "only the poor people pay taxes".</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>

<p>I'm far from demonizing the rich.  I want them to have as much money as they want.  Doesn't bother me.  But at the same time the richer one is the more responsibility I think they have in paying their share of taxes, even if it does mean they pay more than the middle and lower incomes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The owners of my firm own two corporate jets, a race team that has nothing to do with the business, a vintage car dealership, a house in an upscale gated community, a house on Lake Lanier that has a guest house bigger than my townhouse, and a condo or two in Florida.  I don't begrudge them that one bit.  I watched them go from a normal middle class husband and wife to where they are now enjoying the fruits of their labor as it should be.  But they do furnish their employees with decent health care benefits as well as contribute to our 401(k) that vests 100% immediately even if the employee contributes nothing to the 401(k).  Nothing in the law requires them to do anything other than furnish us whatever the minimum wage is now.  They do considerably more than that.  And I'm grateful to work for them.  I certainly hope they continue to make more money.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, if I win a $300 million lottery the poor and middle class can kiss my <span><img alt="bootyshake.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/bootyshake.gif" style="width:25px;height:29px;"></span> .  Until then I expect the wealthy to share a little, not a lot or most of their wealth, but certainly when States such as Georgia are trying to enact tax legislation that benefits the wealthier at the expense of the middle class, I would hope they would stand up and on their own tell the Republican legislature to rethink their position.  I bit idealistic perhaps, but being a liberal what else can I say. <span><img alt="spam4.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/spam4.gif" style="width:42px;height:44px;"></span></p>

<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>satfix</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992904"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a><br><br><br><br><br><br><p>And they do all that without the government forcing them! Go figure.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
Not quite true.  There are some governmental regulations such as minimum wage, as well as competiton that force them to pay part of those benefits.  Look at Wal-Mart.  They "pay" their employees as little as Wal-Mart's executives can get away with.  Wal-Mart offers a minimum health care plan to some of their employees - not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because their executives were brought kicking and screaming by various State Attorney General's and public opinion.  And while no banker, attorney or real estate sales person has gone to jail for all those "liar" loans that helped bring down the housing industry a homeowner who bit off more than he could afford is in jail after being prosecuted by an overzealous Government Agent.   </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html</a><span style="display:none;"> </span><br>
 </p>
<p> </p>

<p>At least in the State of Georgia the Republicans are paying some attention to the middle class.  They have now proposed to protect our deductions for single taxpayers making up to $80,000 and married $160,000 before trimming our deductions. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>True, I do not work for Wal-Mart and I hope the owners of my firm stay properous for another 8 to 10 years so I don't have to consider it.  But look at the Wall Street, banking, health care executives and others who make millions while working very diligently for laws to benefit them at the expense of the working class.  Not to mention that our illustrious members of Congress give themselves automatic raises each year under the guise that they do not actually vote for the raises, health care that is well above what most Americans including former members of the U.S. military receive, and a retirement plan that beats the socks off anything regular working Americans have.    If we simply took away benefits for Members of Congress we would resolve a lot of issues that pit wealthy vs the middle class in this country.  Imagine if U.S. Representatives and Senators had to buy their own medical and prescription insurance.  Wonder how many of them would be excluded by pre-existing conditions while the weathy insurance executives wine and dine them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And note I don't demonize the wealth of persons such as my employer.  They do in fact share it, while keeping enough for themselves to live their lifestyle however they wish. </p>
<p> </p>