or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History" - Page 7

post #241 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The funny thing is that when it comes to actual results, there is little difference between modern Republicans and Democrats.

But they want us to keep bickering amongst ourselves. It keeps us distracted.

I simply don't know why more people just don't get this: that we're being played by the ruling class. There is one political party in this country with two branches/wings. Two wings of the same bird of prey. The Coke and Pepsi parties. The Ford and Chevy parties. Whatever you want to call it.

The fight isn't Democrat vs. Republican it is the ruling elite vs. the rest of America.

The sooner more people wake up to this, the sooner we might see some changes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #242 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I simply don't know why more people just don't get this: that we're being played by the ruling class. There is one political party in this country with two branches/wings. Two wings of the same bird of prey. The Coke and Pepsi parties. The Ford and Chevy parties. Whatever you want to call it.

The fight isn't Democrat vs. Republican it is the ruling elite vs. the rest of America.

The sooner more people wake up to this, the sooner we might see some changes.

I couldn't agree more.

But many people are still more interested in their team winning and rubbing it in the other team's face.

When we think outside the partisan box, step back and look at the big picture we realize that it's merely a scrimmage game between players of the same team, and we are ALL losing the game that actually matters.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #243 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Of course you do.



Because some liberal started one?




I don't claim there aren't smug and arrogant conservatives or Republicans or "right-wingers." There certainly are. The trouble is that the left/liberals/progressives/Democrats seem to have this distinct air about them that suggests they are absent any of that attitude, they are just right. Period. They are just more enlightened. Period. They are just more compassionate and care more. Period. With the left it never seems to be a simple and honest disagreement about means and methods but rather a profound difference about goals and ends. Witness BR (et al). The right don't simply have a different opinion, they hate the poor, they are selfish, greedy bastards. It's not that the people who hold a different view about how to go about things are honestly trying to pursue a different pathway to the same ends, it's that the people he disagrees with are simply wrong and evil.

I think for someone who claims to be neutral between these two parties your judgement seems pretty one sided. I guess we're back to the same old thing. I think the Democrats are the lessor of two evils and you think it's the Republicans. How you could possibly think that is truly a mystery. Especially after the last one. You will probably say that about Obama but there is a fundimental difference. You can't judge his whole time in office yet and a lot could still happen. Look at Bush prior to 911. He seemed like one of the most ordinary, milquetoast type presidents and then he became one of the most controversial of the last 36 years.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #244 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think the Democrats are the lessor of two evils and you think it's the Republicans.

Actually, I don't. And besides that I'm trying to look beyond choosing between two evils.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How you could possibly think that is truly a mystery.

I'll sit back and wait while you contemplate why I think what you think I think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You will probably say that about Obama but there is a fundimental difference.

Really?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You can't judge his whole time in office yet and a lot could still happen.

True enough. However I have restricted my judgement of Obama to what he has actually done and in the absence of action, what he says and says he wants to do. I'm also judging the directionality of these actions. Yes a lot can happen in the future, but unless he does a 180, I'm not terribly optimistic.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #245 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually, I don't. And besides that I'm trying to look beyond choosing between two evils.




I'll sit back and wait while you contemplate why I think what you think I think.




Really?




True enough. However I have restricted my judgement of Obama to what he has actually done and in the absence of action, what he says and says he wants to do. I'm also judging the directionality of these actions. Yes a lot can happen in the future, but unless he does a 180, I'm not terribly optimistic.

Quote:
Really?

Yes. And I've already explained why.

Quote:
I'll sit back and wait while you contemplate why I think what you think I think.

Sit back all you want. My contemplation doesn't mean I'll share your opinion. This might surprise you but I've already thought about this issue quite a bit.

Quote:
Actually, I don't. And besides that I'm trying to look beyond choosing between two evils.

What other real viable choice do you have right now? Abstinence?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #246 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What other real viable choice do you have right now? Abstinence?

You suggest not voting at all, as opposed to voting for the candidates you believe will do the best job, regardless of political party?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #247 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You suggest not voting at all, as opposed to voting for the candidates you believe will do the best job, regardless of political party?

It was a qestion not a suggestion! Can't you read? And I already do that without your help.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #248 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It was a qestion not a suggestion! Can't you read? And I already do that without your help.

No, you vote Democrat.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #249 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No, you vote Democrat.

Funny thing that. I don't recall you being at my desk to see how I fill out the ballot.

You must remember I'm still registered " Independant ". I pay for that privilage as I can't vote in the primaries in my state ( however I think I heard they are trying to change that ). I do vote for some Republicans. Just not many lately as they are so disgusting, selfserving, and childish. They aren't the GOP in the classic sense ( especially someone like Bush ).

I just dislike the Republicans more than the Democrats and " Yes " I tend to be liberal in my views. As you'd point out to me that's not a party line. Get it?

Anything else? Oh! I see you've run away now after your drive by assumption and quips.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #250 of 683
Back again back again diggy dig!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #251 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Funny thing that. I don't recall you being at my desk to see how I fill out the ballot.

You must remember I'm still registered " Independant ". I pay for that privilage as I can't vote in the primaries in my state ( however I think I heard they are trying to change that ). I do vote for some Republicans. Just not many lately as they are so disgusting, selfserving, and childish. They aren't the GOP in the classic sense ( especially someone like Bush ).

I just dislike the Republicans more than the Democrats and " Yes " I tend to be liberal in my views. As you'd point out to me that's not a party line. Get it?

Anything else? Oh I see you've run away now after your drive by assumption.

No need to get all snooty. I stated a fact, did I not?

You vote Republican or Democrat. Not 3rd Party?

But what if a 3rd Party candidate more closely represents you and your views? Do you have the courage to vote for principle, rather than name recognition or just so you can have a 50% chance of saying you voted for the guy that won?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #252 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No need to get all snooty. I stated a fact, did I not?

You vote Republican or Democrat. Not 3rd Party?

But what if a 3rd Party candidate more closely represents you and your views? Do you have the courage to vote for principle, rather than name recognition or just so you can have a 50% chance of saying you voted for the guy that won?

Quote:
No need to get all snooty. I stated a fact, did I not?

No you did not! You missed a quotation mark and you even quoted it yourself!

It's been since the 70's, my 20's, and the MacBride campaign ( since I and my parents were Libertarians ) that I've seen a viable 3rd party. I lost faith in them then and haven't recovered it.

Here's a little history : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_MacBride

So been there done that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #253 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes. And I've already explained why.

But your explanations ring hollow. Just because you can try to explain why Obama and Bush are substantially different or why Obama is better doesn't mean anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sit back all you want. My contemplation doesn't mean I'll share your opinion. This might surprise you but I've already thought about this issue quite a bit.

Hey Einstein, I was commenting on you telling me what I think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What other real viable choice do you have right now?

Try to get other people to see beyond the simplistic partisan views.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #254 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

But your explanations ring hollow. Just because you can try to explain why Obama and Bush are substantially different or why Obama is better doesn't mean anything.




Hey Einstein, I was commenting on you telling me what I think.




Try to get other people to see beyond the simplistic partisan views.

Quote:
But your explanations ring hollow.

Only to you. I've listed before why I don't like what the Republican party has become.

Quote:
Try to get other people to see beyond the simplistic partisan views.

Good luck with that! Like I've said I've already gotten my feet wet with a 3rd party. You'd have more of a point if I hadn't.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #255 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No you did not! You missed a quotation mark and you even quoted it yourself!

It's been since the 70's, my 20's, and the MacBride campaign ( since I and my parents were Libertarians ) that I've seen a viable 3rd party. I lost faith in them then and haven't recovered it.

Here's a little history : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_MacBride

So been there done that.

You haven't voted for a 3rd Party candidate since the 70's? Man, you really are stuck in the partisan sandbox. How sad.

I don't care if a candidate is from the "Purple Octopus" party. If I agree with his platform and I think he'll do a better job than the other candidates out there, I'll vote for him.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #256 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Only to you.

Perhaps. But you're welcome to do a poll to find out if that's true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I've listed before why I don't like what the Republican party has become.

I know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Good luck with that! Like I've said I've already gotten my feet wet with a 3rd party. You'd have more of a point if I hadn't.

In short, you've thrown your hands up in resignation to only selecting between the lesser of two evils?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #257 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You haven't voted for a 3rd Party candidate since the 70's? Man, you really are stuck in the partisan sandbox. How sad.

I don't care if a candidate is from the "Purple Octopus" party. If I agree with his platform and I think he'll do a better job than the other candidates out there, I'll vote for him.

Jazzy! Quite simply there hasn't been anyone who stood a snowball's chance in hell to win. Also They haven't convinced me that they offer any real difference to the other two main parties. So there you are. Why waste my vote? Especially when there's some idiot like Bush that could be president and could set us on a path that might be difficult to recover from?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #258 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Perhaps. But you're welcome to do a poll to find out if that's true.




I know.




In short, you've thrown your hands up in resignation to only selecting between the lesser of two evils?

It's better than not voting. An old girl friend of mine used to have a saying : " If you don't vote don't bitch ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #259 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's better than not voting.

Maybe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

An old girl friend of mine used to have a saying : " If you don't vote don't bitch ".

Words of wisdom from your old girlfriend now? At least try Confucius!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #260 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Maybe.




Words of wisdom from your old girlfriend now? At least try Confucius!

Oh for god's sake give it up! Do you really need to have the last word that bad?

This goes for Jazzy also! I made up my mind about this long ago. You haven't given me any reason here to change it. If a viable candidate comes up I'll take a look. But until then......
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #261 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh for god's sake give it up! Do you really need to have the last word that bad?

Nope. I'll let you have it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #262 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Jazzy! Quite simply there hasn't been anyone who stood a snowball's chance in hell to win. Also They haven't convinced me that they offer any real difference to the other two main parties. So there you are. Why waste my vote? Especially when there's some idiot like Bush that could be president and could set us on a path that might be difficult to recover from?

Ah, so for you it's about who can win, then. It's not about principle. Because if you actually took the time to do some research on 3rd Party candidates you would see that several of them do indeed set themselves apart from the big box parties.

There are even candidates running on Democrat and Republican tickets that bring 3rd Party ideas and platforms to the table, but they are quickly dismissed by the media and folks like you as "fringe" and "irrelevant".

To all those who are fed up with the way things are going, I say it's time to put your vote where your mouth is. Stop voting for the "lesser of two evils".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #263 of 683
120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History

Read more: http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-larges...#ixzz0yTWtNuWZ

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #264 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History

Nope, sorry, you're wrong:

Quote:
Under the Obama Plan:
  • Middle class families will see their taxes cut and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
  • Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
  • Obamas plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding jazzguru. May I suggest you click on the helpful, interactive "What's Your Obama Tax Cut" link on the right?

A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #265 of 683
That's odd...
See, I've already been told (by the CPA office that does my taxes) to expect my tax bill to be HIGHER next April. (meaning: it WILL be unless the laws are changed further.)

And I make considerably less than $250,000.

Hardly a tax CUT if I'm paying MORE in taxes!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #266 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History

Read more: http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-larges...#ixzz0yTWtNuWZ

Those aren't tax "hikes" or "increases." Those "allowing the Bush tax cuts expire." There's a difference. Didn't you get the memo?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #267 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Those aren't tax "hikes" or "increases." Those "allowing the Bush tax cuts expire." There's a difference. Didn't you get the memo?

You can not "allow" something to expire that will expire by law. A law signed by GW Bush. The tax cuts will expire because that is what the Republican party wanted.

You are also claiming to see into the future this makes you insane.
Mystic Joe 1870

Please tell us how many jobs were created by these tax cuts during the Bush presidency.

Do you pay income tax or are you on payroll?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #268 of 683
Congress could just as easily renew that legislation and allow those tax "cuts" to continue in perpetuity.

Semantics aside: if my tax bill is going UP, then my taxes are being raised. (Yes, assuming income is constant.)
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #269 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

You can not "allow" something to expire that will expire by law. A law signed by GW Bush. The tax cuts will expire because that is what the Republican party wanted.

The tax cuts will expire because that's how they got them passed in the first place. They promised that the tax cuts were a temporary measure to (attempt to) stimulate the economy. If it was their true secret intention that when they were supposed to expire, they would extend them again permanently, then they were being dishonest when they sold the package.

Actually, there's no point in extending them. Whatever "boost" to the economy they caused is long past. Expiry will not "unboost" the economy. Expiry will not make people spend less or hire less because no one is spending or hiring in the first place. All it does is affect the runaway profit of the rich.
post #270 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

That's odd...
See, I've already been told (by the CPA office that does my taxes) to expect my tax bill to be HIGHER next April. (meaning: it WILL be unless the laws are changed further.)

And I make considerably less than $250,000.

Hardly a tax CUT if I'm paying MORE in taxes!

So either your tax office is lying to you, or you're lying about your income. Full stop. Or maybe, though you're making less than $250k, you're making more than you did last year, so um... your taxes will be more than they were last year. It's not rocket science.
post #271 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Expiry will not "unboost" the economy. Expiry will not make people spend less or hire less because no one is spending or hiring in the first place.

Don't be so sure.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #272 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So either your tax office is lying to you, or you're lying about your income. Full stop. Or maybe, though you're making less than $250k, you're making more than you did last year, so um... your taxes will be more than they were last year. It's not rocket science.

This is a rather presumptuous post.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #273 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So either your tax office is lying to you, or you're lying about your income. Full stop. Or maybe, though you're making less than $250k, you're making more than you did last year, so um... your taxes will be more than they were last year. It's not rocket science.

No... Actually making ever so slightly less than last year... So naturally, the CPA's that do nothing but tax law are lying, and you know better than they about my tax liability.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #274 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

No... Actually making ever so slightly less than last year... So naturally, the CPA's that do nothing but tax law are lying, and you know better than they about my tax liability.

It's an Obamatron or Obamapologist thing. There's no way that what Obama said was going to happen isn't going to happen and so anyone saying so must be lying. Or a racist. But Obama is right, just remember that and you'll do fine. It's often better though when Obama himself, with casual disarming chuckle and cock of the head (while he looks for the right response), dismisses anyone who brings into question whether he's actually going to do what he said (like "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.")

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #275 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

You can not "allow" something to expire that will expire by law. A law signed by GW Bush. The tax cuts will expire because that is what the Republican party wanted.

The tax cuts will expire because they were implemented to begin with. You will die because you were born. Specious argument.

No Republican wants these tax cuts to expire. It was necessary to get the bill passed with Democrat approval. We've seen what happens when Democrats are unopposed.

Call it what you will, but everyone will pay more next year. If you earn 5¢ of taxable income your taxes will increase by 5%. If you earn more you will pay more... much more. Planning on dying in 2011? Perhaps you should consider accelerating that too, since your estate tax goes from zero to 55%. Sorry grandkids, looks like you'll have to sell the house - oh, by the way, how's that going for you?

Where will this money come from? How much extra do you have swimming around in your wallet at the end of each month?

Here is our present tax code:



This is what is expected under the Obama plan:



If you have capital gains or are lucky enough to pay the AMT, be prepared to pay even more. Perhaps this will get you started on deciding which of your beloved family members goes without food once a week. Or worse. Got that second job lined up yet?

I know the fondness liberals have of blaming others for the ills they create, but there is no dodging this one: Obama Democrats own this tax increase.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #276 of 683
Source for those rates, John? And how can you post rates without corresponding deductibles? Of coure someone earning 5¢ won't pay any taxes. You're saying they will. You're lying too. Typical pattern of behavior.
post #277 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Source for those rates, John? And how can you post rates without corresponding deductibles? Of coure someone earning 5¢ won't pay any taxes. You're saying they will. You're lying too. Typical pattern of behavior.

So glad you asked. The Tax Foundation has projected tax increases for each state and Congressional district:

Quote:
Nationally, the typical middle-income family, which has a median income of $63,366, would see its federal income tax burden increase by $1,540 if the Bush-era tax cuts expire.

While income ranges are varied, this means the average American family's income taxes are forecast to rise almost $30 a week. This is easily food for one family member per week, as I wrote. At least this will help with our obesity problem.

As I wrote this does not include the pernicious effect of increased capital gains taxes on investments, nor does it include the death tax, nor does in include the stealth AMT, forecast to snag an astounding 28 million taxpayers this year - up from 4 million last year and 20,000 at its inception.

As I wrote (pay attention this time):

Quote:
Originally Posted by my brilliant self View Post

If you earn 5¢ of taxable income your taxes will increase by 5%.

In the United States, taxable income is taxed, which gives rise to the term "taxable income". Taxable income, by the way, frequently includes income that you don't earn. In similar fashion, this gives rise to the term "unearned income".

I don't know how taxes are inflicted upon you over there in HK but this is the unfortunate truth here in the US. Accusing this author of a "typical pattern" of deception is slander. I understand that's a typical liberal pattern of behavior that results in the accuser feeling good. Feeling good is the liberal's most noble achievement, so you may expect such behavior to be ignored.

Standard deductions are expected to rise by about $100, an insignificant amount.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #278 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

The tax cuts will expire because they were implemented to begin with. You will die because you were born. Specious argument.

No Republican wants these tax cuts to expire. It was necessary to get the bill passed with Democrat approval. We've seen what happens when Democrats are unopposed.

Call it what you will, but everyone will pay more next year. If you earn 5¢ of taxable income your taxes will increase by 5%. If you earn more you will pay more... much more. Planning on dying in 2011? Perhaps you should consider accelerating that too, since your estate tax goes from zero to 55%. Sorry grandkids, looks like you'll have to sell the house - oh, by the way, how's that going for you?

Where will this money come from? How much extra do you have swimming around in your wallet at the end of each month?

Here is our present tax code:



This is what is expected under the Obama plan:



If you have capital gains or are lucky enough to pay the AMT, be prepared to pay even more. Perhaps this will get you started on deciding which of your beloved family members goes without food once a week. Or worse. Got that second job lined up yet?

I know the fondness liberals have of blaming others for the ills they create, but there is no dodging this one: Obama Democrats own this tax increase.

Wow, this is complete bullshit.
if you make below 9,000 (or is it 13,000 now?) you are not even required to file taxes,
I am hoping these are INCOME tax numbers are they? Or do you believe income = salary = payroll?
I am in the 1% of people you want to pay less taxes and I appreciate it. However if you raise taxes I will spend more for my businesses so I can write off more. This will obviously circulate more cash into the US economy because the best write offs are for hiring people and expanding business. Currently I do not have to spend $ and can just sit on my cash since tax rates are low and I do not feel the need to look for deductable expenses. I'll just have more "stockholder meetings" on St. Lucia. Yeah, I can write that off. If I am taxed more I'll have to actually work to find deductions f$%#$@%^&.

BUSH WRECKED THIS COUNTRY.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #279 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Wow, this is complete bullshit.
if you make below 9,000 (or is it 13,000 now?) you are not even required to file taxes,
I am hoping these are INCOME tax numbers are they? Or do you believe income = salary = payroll?

I clearly made reference to taxable income. Tax on income for which no taxes are due is zero. Taxes on income for which taxes are due will increase to devastating effect.

It's no wonder paid tax preparers do so well, having to explain this stuff to you folks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

BUSH WRECKED THIS COUNTRY.

Wrecked... OK, what's the word for Obama's actions? Obliterated? Annihilated? Über-wrecked? How much worse than wrecked is wrecked to the nth degree? Such comparisons are meaningless.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #280 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I clearly made reference to taxable income. Tax on income for which no taxes are due is zero. Taxes on income for which taxes are due will increase to devastating effect.

It's no wonder paid tax preparers do so well, having to explain this stuff to you folks.



Wrecked... OK, what's the word for Obama's actions? Obliterated? Annihilated? Über-wrecked? How much worse than wrecked is wrecked to the nth degree? Such comparisons are meaningless.

What you don't get, and what your table doesn't show, is that if you're making less than $250k per year, less of your income will be taxable. So your total tax paid will be less. That is if Obama doesn't wimp out on his plan or if obstructionist Republicans don't block it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"