Taxes US

  • Thread starter Thread starter LMP
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LMP

Guest
pgcalc.com/about/featuredarticlejan09.htm

I found this article above pretty much on-the-mark.

Regarding Consideration 1: I heard on TV this morning that Obama’s political advisers are telling media that
Obama/Democrats WILL definitely allow tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010.

So what does this mean? We’ll be getting a tax increase without any legislator voting on the issue. It will be automatic. This is ALL tax brackets! (Change back to the way things were, I guess. )

This next year 2009, use and excise tax will be enacted, instead of income tax increases applied on “only the rich.” Already the feds are planning a 10 cent per gallon gas tax increase. What’s going to happen in Feb 2009, when OPEC who controls 40% of oil cuts production again —Iran being the biggest cutter—because the Dec 2008 meeting cuts didn’t produce results? Pair
this OPEC cut with Obama/Democrat fed gas tax increase, plus the states will follow this reasoning for sure.

Obviously, Reagan supply side didn’t get through these thick, totally ignorant heads at all.

Start storing food, gas in your backyard shed, stuffing your matresses with gold coins, hunker down for the L-O-N-G haul and hope for REAL CHANGE in 2012.

Voters have only themselves to blame.
 
LMP said:
We’ll be getting a tax increase without any legislator voting on the issue.
Click to expand...
The legislators voted to put in the sunset clause. That means that the legislators have already voted on this issue. The tax increase was voted on, signed by the President and is now part of the law.
Voters have only themselves to blame.
Click to expand...
Yes, those voters who voted for the President who signed into law the sunset clause you are complsaining about.

rossum
 
Hold on to your wallets, folks. This is only the begining. It’s going to be a long and expensive four years. We’re all rich now, according to Democrat standards.
 
rossum said:
The legislators voted to put in the sunset clause. That means that the legislators have already voted on this issue. The tax increase was voted on, signed by the President and is now part of the law.

Yes, those voters who voted for the President who signed into law the sunset clause you are complsaining about.

rossum
Click to expand...
It was that or no tax cut at all the democrats would have blocked the tax cut. A lot of us where screaming that if congress was serious about cutting taxes there would be to expiration date I blame both parties.

I did not vote for BHO because in my opinion he belongs to the party of death. I hope the first thing does is raise tax really high I hope he raises them higher than Bill.

So in two years we can vote that party out of the house.
 
rossum said:
The legislators voted to put in the sunset clause. That means that the legislators have already voted on this issue. The tax increase was voted on, signed by the President and is now part of the law.

Yes, those voters who voted for the President who signed into law the sunset clause you are complsaining about.

rossum
Click to expand...
The Republcians want to make them permanent-they have been trying to do so for 5 years. The democrats believe they can let them expire and no one will consider it a tax increase-I know Obama supporters are preety gullible but I doubt even they will buy into this.
 
LMP said:
pgcalc.com/about/featuredarticlejan09.htm

I found this article above pretty much on-the-mark.

Regarding Consideration 1: I heard on TV this morning that Obama’s political advisers are telling media that
Obama/Democrats WILL definitely allow tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010.

So what does this mean? We’ll be getting a tax increase without any legislator voting on the issue. It will be automatic. This is ALL tax brackets! (Change back to the way things were, I guess. )

This next year 2009, use and excise tax will be enacted, instead of income tax increases applied on “only the rich.” Already the feds are planning a 10 cent per gallon gas tax increase. What’s going to happen in Feb 2009, when OPEC who controls 40% of oil cuts production again —Iran being the biggest cutter—because the Dec 2008 meeting cuts didn’t produce results? Pair
this OPEC cut with Obama/Democrat fed gas tax increase, plus the states will follow this reasoning for sure.

Obviously, Reagan supply side didn’t get through these thick, totally ignorant heads at all.

Start storing food, gas in your backyard shed, stuffing your matresses with gold coins, hunker down for the L-O-N-G haul and hope for REAL CHANGE in 2012.

Voters have only themselves to blame.
Click to expand...
48% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. They have voted themsleves a continued free lunch.
 
Is the $1,000 child tax credit part of the sunset clause.

That is a NICE perk for families.
 
manualman said:
Is the $1,000 child tax credit part of the sunset clause.

That is a NICE perk for families.
Click to expand...
I want decreased incentives for having children, especially among the lower classes. The world doesn’t need more cheap labor.
 
ribozyme said:
I want decreased incentives for having children, especially among the lower classes. The world doesn’t need more cheap labor.
Click to expand...
No surpirse here-the left has always favored eugenics. The goal. I assume, is to have just enough lower class children available to clean the houses and cut the lawns of the elite.
 
estesbob said:
No surpirse here-the left has always favored eugenics. The goal. I assume, is to have just enough lower class children available to clean the houses and cut the lawns of the elite.
Click to expand...
I do not think the elite would like “just enough.” That implies that those people would not be plentiful and would command a scarcity premium in the labor market. I do not think the elite likes expensive labor. The elite does not want “just enough” labor, they want a surplus.

But fewer people is good thing. It is a good thing for the people who are born. Less competition in the labor market.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Maybe Obama is planning tax cuts.

“WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.”

online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop
Click to expand...
And many of these tax cuts will be going in the manner of incentives to people who do not pay income taxes.
 
mary_bobo said:
And many of these tax cuts will be going in the manner of incentives to people who do not pay income taxes.
Click to expand...
Maybe they can get training, go to work and pay taxes? Or pay for child care so they can work and pay taxes? What do you think?

But if a person doesn’t pay taxes how can they get a tax cut? I do know people who get $2k refunds from the earned -income credit, but these are working single mothers with kids. The money goes for child care for them to be able to work – and pay taxes!
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Maybe Obama is planning tax cuts.

“WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.”

online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop
Click to expand...
That depends on the answer to my question. Bush’s tax plan initiated a $1,000 per child tax credit. If that element is in the sunset clause then my taxes are about to go UP by $3,000 per year before President Obama so generously gives me his $1,000 per family “tax cut.” If my suspicion is correct, Obama’s “tax cut” is going to raise my taxes by $2,000 per year.
And here I thought I was middle middle class. Nope, Obama says I’m, rich??

Ribo, I hope your dignity and human worth never gets evaluated by your own criteria. 😉
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Maybe they can get training, go to work and pay taxes? Or pay for child care so they can work and pay taxes? What do you think?

But if a person doesn’t pay taxes how can they get a tax cut? I do know people who get $2k refunds from the earned -income credit, but these are working single mothers with kids. The money goes for child care for them to be able to work – and pay taxes!
Click to expand...
There are what are called refundable tax creidts-that is you get them even if you dont owe taxes. The earned Income credit is the best example of this
 
manualman said:
Ribo, I hope your dignity and human worth never gets evaluated by your own criteria. 😉
Click to expand...
I am not that friendly to human life before people are born, but after, I advocate a welfare state (this is probably one of the best ethical ideas humans have came up with) to protect them. The welfare state is a crowning human ethical achievement - the apotheosis of humanity.

When I support the concept of the welfare state, it shows that I think humans have “dignity” after they are born.
 
I would suggest that before you argue with someone who’s position is so off the wall, you take a look at the profile they have listed. In some cases it will be all you need to realize that arguing is a moot point.
 
It’s a hijack from the thread purpose anyways. My apologies.
 
Well, higher taxes to support a welfare state shows a respect of human dignity, doesn’t it? It shows concern over the unfortunate instead of hatred.
 
Unless the said higher taxes result in reduced economic activity to the point where total tax revenue is decreased.

Economics 101: The size of the pie is NOT static.

IMO there is an tax rate that results in an optimal revnue stream for the government. The problem is that rate changes with the wind based on 14,000 factors. Selecting the best tax rate is as much voodoo as it is science.

Sadly we seem stuck with politicians who seem divided into just two camps:
  1. Always reduce taxes on everyone paying them when a problem arises (but mostly on the rich).
  2. Always raise taxes on the rich when problems arise (and define “rich” creatively).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top