Tax Cuts

KDH12KDH12 Posts: 2,096
edited November 2010 in A Moving Train
So I don't get it

And this has nothing to do with Obama becuase we would be facing the same debate regardless of who was president

But why do people want to extend the Tax Cuts for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

We talk about a deficit and cutting spending at the same time want to keep tax cuts we can not afford.

Today I heard an interview with a House Rep who stated that the only way to stimulate (get back on track) the economy was to continue to the tax cuts for everyone including the rich, but they failed to acknowledge that we have been living with the cuts for what 3-4 years now..... they have not done much to stimulate shit to this point.

Besides people wanting to keep their money and not give it to the government what is the logic (keep in mind that 97% of us make less than 250K)
**CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Well, it IS a less controversial and grand-standing-reps-friendly move to just extend tax cuts already in place than it is to strike them, and instead do a stimulus package of sorts with the money. Retraction of the tax cuts will definitely be an "anti-stimulus" no matter how you look at it.

    Now, those tax cuts I find stupid to begin with, but right now it seemed the least fuss-generating way to keep a stimulus going. Ideally in my mind, they would be retracted and at least re-tailored before put in effect again, or use the extra cash for stimulus packages or downpayment on public debt.

    A stimulus package is always a blend of a tax cut in some way and direct public spending in some way. So this was probably the easiest way to get the tax-break part going.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    My thoughts on the "it's only 3% of the population" argument is that 3% is still a ton of people and there are lots of small mom and pop businesses that cross that combined threshold of $250K. The current US population is 307,006,550, so the expiring tax cuts will affect 9,210,197 Americans. The attitude taken that this only will effect people floating around in yachts is not a good representation of this demographic.

    Maybe the best solution moving forward is for the Democrats and Republican to reach a compromise . . . perhaps raise the threshold to $500K as this would harshen the blow to small business owners. Or perhaps they could find ways to slash the budget so we don't need to put the burden on the citizens of the U.S. to fix their mishaps . . .
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    From here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03148.html


    For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000 it might be about $400 a year.

    For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

    How about married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

    A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

    If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500.


    I say let them expire...you know, since the debt is such a big issue...
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    inmytree wrote:
    From here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03148.html


    For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000 it might be about $400 a year.

    For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

    How about married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

    A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

    If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500.


    I say let them expire...you know, since the debt is such a big issue...

    Yep, because obviously when things get tight everyone can always just ask for more money instead of stop spending so damn much.

    I say slash spending, cut the Department of education, look real closely at military spending and adjust the way we think about it as a nation. Plenty to cut there I'm sure.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    inmytree wrote:
    From here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03148.html


    For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000 it might be about $400 a year.

    For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

    How about married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

    A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

    If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500.


    I say let them expire...you know, since the debt is such a big issue...

    Yep, because obviously when things get tight everyone can always just ask for more money instead of stop spending so damn much.

    I say slash spending, cut the Department of education, look real closely at military spending and adjust the way we think about it as a nation. Plenty to cut there I'm sure.

    ugh...the dept. of ed thing again...fine get rid of it...how much with that save...?
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    this is pretty interesting...

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html


    try it out and see how you can save the US from the pits of hell.... :ugeek:
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    inmytree wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    From here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03148.html


    For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000 it might be about $400 a year.

    For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

    How about married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

    A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

    If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500.


    I say let them expire...you know, since the debt is such a big issue...

    Yep, because obviously when things get tight everyone can always just ask for more money instead of stop spending so damn much.

    I say slash spending, cut the Department of education, look real closely at military spending and adjust the way we think about it as a nation. Plenty to cut there I'm sure.

    ugh...the dept. of ed thing again...fine get rid of it...how much with that save...?

    It one small example of the Redundancy Department of Redundancy that exists.

    You're right...why bother...just raise taxes to pay for everything.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741

    It one small example of the Redundancy Department of Redundancy that exists.

    You're right...why bother...just raise taxes to pay for everything.


    how much would be saved...? I'm just asking...
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    ED currently administers a budget of $63.7 billion in FY 2010 discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) and $96.8 billion in discretionary funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    inmytree wrote:
    this is pretty interesting...

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html


    try it out and see how you can save the US from the pits of hell.... :ugeek:


    Very cool..thanks.

    I did it!!!! 63% from spending cuts ; 37% from tax (consumption tax and mIlionaires tax mostly)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    unsung wrote:
    ED currently administers a budget of $63.7 billion in FY 2010 discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) and $96.8 billion in discretionary funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

    thanks...


    I guess out of 6.4 trillion cutting the dept. of ed would save us...
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    inmytree wrote:
    this is pretty interesting...

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html


    try it out and see how you can save the US from the pits of hell.... :ugeek:


    Very cool..thanks.

    I did it!!!! 63% from spending cuts ; 37% from tax (consumption tax and mIlionaires tax mostly)

    what did you cut...? and who'd you tax...? I hope is wasn't those super rich folks that create jobs... ;)
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    inmytree wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    this is pretty interesting...

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html


    try it out and see how you can save the US from the pits of hell.... :ugeek:


    Very cool..thanks.

    I did it!!!! 63% from spending cuts ; 37% from tax (consumption tax and mIlionaires tax mostly)

    what did you cut...? and who'd you tax...? I hope is wasn't those super rich folks that create jobs... ;)

    Some super rich got an extra tax...other than that I added the national sales tax. I'm much more in favor of paying tax on the goods and services I buy then just for making money. So in the end, I screwed everyone!!!!!
    hippiemom = goodness
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741

    Some super rich got an extra tax...other than that I added the national sales tax. I'm much more in favor of paying tax on the goods and services I buy then just for making money. So in the end, I screwed everyone!!!!!

    you damn fascist, marxist, socialist, you... ;):lol:

    edit: here's what I would do...

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=4m2069qp
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    inmytree wrote:

    Some super rich got an extra tax...other than that I added the national sales tax. I'm much more in favor of paying tax on the goods and services I buy then just for making money. So in the end, I screwed everyone!!!!!

    you damn fascist, marxist, socialist, you... ;):lol:

    edit: here's what I would do...

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=4m2069qp


    You love your taxes huh? ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    inmytree wrote:

    Some super rich got an extra tax...other than that I added the national sales tax. I'm much more in favor of paying tax on the goods and services I buy then just for making money. So in the end, I screwed everyone!!!!!

    you damn fascist, marxist, socialist, you... ;):lol:

    edit: here's what I would do...

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=4m2069qp


    You love your taxes huh? ;)

    I guess, Mr. I Support a Nat'l Sales Tax ;) ...I see it as price of being a citizen...
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    inmytree wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    you damn fascist, marxist, socialist, you... ;):lol:

    edit: here's what I would do...

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=4m2069qp


    You love your taxes huh? ;)

    I guess, Mr. I Support a Nat'l Sales Tax ;) ...I see it as price of being a citizen...

    See, that's why I'd support a national sales tax...it gets citizens and illegal immigrants alike when they shop!!!!!!
    hippiemom = goodness
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    See, that's why I'd support a national sales tax...it gets citizens and illegal immigrants alike when they shop!!!!!!
    that is assuming everyone has money TO shop with....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    See, that's why I'd support a national sales tax...it gets citizens and illegal immigrants alike when they shop!!!!!!
    that is assuming everyone has money TO shop with....


    Pretty sure everybody buys something...I'd tax food stamp purchases too! :lol:

    Doesn't it make more sense to tax people on what they buy they to tax them on making money? This way you still get a disproportionate amount of money from the wealthy because they certainly buy a lot of stuff.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Not one to argue politics, but I'll throw in my two cents here...

    The top 1% of income makers pay 38.2% of all income taxes paid. These individuals make $380K and up.

    The top 5% of income makers pay 58.72% of all income taxes paid. These individuals make $159K and up.

    I don't know where those making $250K fall in line exactly. But, it's clearly inbetween. If I did the math I'd bet it's a bit upwards of the 50% mark, so maybe 51% (not sure)? If that's true, then the those making 250K and up pay over 50% of all taxes.

    Therefore, if you raise taxes on those folks, and you are cutting taxes on the rest an equal amount , you are raising "overall" taxes. Because if those who make under 250K pay 49% of taxes and those who make over 250K pay 51%, then taxes overall will increase. Obviously, the caveat would be if the rate of cuts in those making less than 250K is MORE then the rate of increases in those over $250K.

    My point in mentioning this is not to point out that they are raising taxes, that's obvious. It's to point out the political deception going on here. Saying you are "cutting taxes on the middle class", when you are keeping them steady is not cutting taxes. I do understand that the Bush Tax Cuts were set to faze out. But, if they fazed out with nothing else, there would be a across the board "tax increase". The semantics here are the only thing that bothers me personally. The Democrats should just be honest with their rhetoric. They want to raise taxes on those making $250K and keep taxes on those under that threshold the same. There's nothing wrong with that stance. But, the whole class warfare push is (in my opinion) getting old. Either raise taxes or don't. If you are raising taxes on one set. Say you are raising taxes.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    KDH12 wrote:
    So I don't get it

    And this has nothing to do with Obama becuase we would be facing the same debate regardless of who was president

    But why do people want to extend the Tax for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

    We talk about a deficit and cutting spending at the same time want to keep tax cuts we can not afford.

    Today I heard an interview with a House Rep who stated that the only way to stimulate (get back on track) the economy was to continue to the tax cuts for everyone including the rich, but they failed to acknowledge that we have been living with the cuts for what 3-4 years now..... they have not done much to stimulate shit to this point.

    Besides people wanting to keep their money and not give it to the government what is the logic (keep in mind that 97% of us make less than 250K)

    My biggest problem with federal taxes changes from time to time, but for the most part ranges between these three things

    1- I hate the idea that a government that spent itself into this issue will just increase taxes to fix it...when will that end? Seriously, It sets a bad precedent. The rich pay their share of taxes, 50%...do we really want to make that number 75%? I don't know, I am certainly not one of the rich, but i just don't see the logic in allowing a behemoth to sustain its growth. the federal government needs to get smaller not larger. Until we get leaders in office who see that, we will continue to be gutted. States exist for a reason, one of those would be to TRY to solve day to day problems of their citizens...that isn't the federal governments responsibility yet they certainly seem to be going down that road.

    2 - Raising taxes takes money out of people's pockets to feed a bloated budget that does many many things in the name of the united states that are sometimes reprehensible, sometimes nation building, but always a use of the resources that should be used domestically and takes that money internationally or just drops it on people's heads...literally. I don't want to give them any more money to do those things. They already get too much

    3- A progressive system with a billion and one loopholes has got to go. Simplify the tax code first. Take out loopholes and tax credits for everything under the son and make people pay the rate they are supposed to already.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • satansbedsatansbed Posts: 2,139
    im pretty much 50 50 and saved alot more than needed
  • KDH12KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    KDH12 wrote:
    So I don't get it

    And this has nothing to do with Obama becuase we would be facing the same debate regardless of who was president

    But why do people want to extend the Tax for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

    We talk about a deficit and cutting spending at the same time want to keep tax cuts we can not afford.

    Today I heard an interview with a House Rep who stated that the only way to stimulate (get back on track) the economy was to continue to the tax cuts for everyone including the rich, but they failed to acknowledge that we have been living with the cuts for what 3-4 years now..... they have not done much to stimulate shit to this point.

    Besides people wanting to keep their money and not give it to the government what is the logic (keep in mind that 97% of us make less than 250K)

    My biggest problem with federal taxes changes from time to time, but for the most part ranges between these three things

    1- I hate the idea that a government that spent itself into this issue will just increase taxes to fix it...when will that end? Seriously, It sets a bad precedent. The rich pay their share of taxes, 50%...do we really want to make that number 75%? I don't know, I am certainly not one of the rich, but i just don't see the logic in allowing a behemoth to sustain its growth. the federal government needs to get smaller not larger. Until we get leaders in office who see that, we will continue to be gutted. States exist for a reason, one of those would be to TRY to solve day to day problems of their citizens...that isn't the federal governments responsibility yet they certainly seem to be going down that road.

    2 - Raising taxes takes money out of people's pockets to feed a bloated budget that does many many things in the name of the united states that are sometimes reprehensible, sometimes nation building, but always a use of the resources that should be used domestically and takes that money internationally or just drops it on people's heads...literally. I don't want to give them any more money to do those things. They already get too much

    3- A progressive system with a billion and one loopholes has got to go. Simplify the tax code first. Take out loopholes and tax credits for everything under the son and make people pay the rate they are supposed to already.

    except that letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire would return us to tax levels from the Clinton administration

    plus most that bloated spend came from trillions of dollars going to 2 wars, hard to justify fight two wars and cutting taxes in the 2000's but with Rep President and Rep Congress it happened

    now we got bills to pay and no one wants to pay up.....
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • KDH12KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    inmytree wrote:

    Yep, because obviously when things get tight everyone can always just ask for more money instead of stop spending so damn much.

    I say slash spending, cut the Department of education, look real closely at military spending and adjust the way we think about it as a nation. Plenty to cut there I'm sure.

    ugh...the dept. of ed thing again...fine get rid of it...how much with that save...?[/quote]

    I agree why does everyone have it out for Dept of Ed

    why not the Dept of Agriculture or Dept of Labor or Dept of Interior of the Dept of Defense :shock:

    the Dept of Ed is the #1 financier of college education without them I would not have completed undergrad or grad school.... now I owe them an arm and a leg but it is better than owing Citi bank
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • KDH12 wrote:
    I agree why does everyone have it out for Dept of Ed

    why not the Dept of Agriculture or Dept of Labor or Dept of Interior of the Dept of Defense :shock:

    the Dept of Ed is the #1 financier of college education without them I would not have completed undergrad or grad school.... now I owe them an arm and a leg but it is better than owing Citi bank

    I've got no love for the Department of Ed at all. But, before I'd cut them all together-- Homeland Security should be first. PEACE on those guys. The DEA and ATF would be a good ones to get rid of, and take the Drug War with it. The CIA? Sure. What do they do but make us completely UNSAFE with their clandestine rogue operations and bogus intelligence that leads our President and Congress to make bad decisions. The FDA? Bought and paid for by big pharma, agri, etc... The IRS-- wait, wait... Those guys are #1-- the guys whose job it is to forcefully suck money out of the economy, and don't mind using force and seizures to do it-- whose very existence makes you wave your 5th amendment rights when you file your 1040. And of course, The Federal Reserve, who makes it all possible with their printing press to pay for it all, combined with their shady backroom dealings with other central banks.
    Also, end the War on Terror, and bring our troops home from every base from around the world. Keep the DOD, but cut its budget in half.

    Here's my compromise: Keep the Department of Ed for its placebo affect only.

    Without government loans, and fractional reserve banking which creates money out of thin air (remember I eliminated the Fed?), people will be able to pay for college out of pocket, and from charitable scholarship funds. Without a tremendous amount of government money influxed into the system, colleges will have to charge a sensible tuition instead of runnin gthe racket that they do right now.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    KDH12 wrote:
    But why do people want to extend the Tax for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

    What I don't understand is why anyone wants to give more money to a government that has proven incapable of competently managing it.

    If they do not extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest (which is discrimination, in my opinion) than shouldn't they lower taxes by the same amount somewhere else to offset the increase in revenue for our greedy government?

    The last thing the government needs is more money and therefore more power over our lives and less freedom for all of us.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    KDH12 wrote:
    But why do people want to extend the Tax for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

    What I don't understand is why anyone wants to give more money to a government that has proven incapable of competently managing it.

    If they do not extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest (which is discrimination, in my opinion) than shouldn't they lower taxes by the same amount somewhere else to offset the increase in revenue for our greedy government?

    The last thing the government needs is more money and therefore more power over our lives and less freedom for all of us.

    oh that evil gov't, you know, the one we've had for a couple hundred years...they can't do anything right... :roll:
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    inmytree wrote:
    oh that evil gov't, you know, the one we've had for a couple hundred years...they can't do anything right... :roll:
    It's not that they can't do anything right, it's just that they can't complete tasks efficiently.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Jason P wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    oh that evil gov't, you know, the one we've had for a couple hundred years...they can't do anything right... :roll:
    It's not that they can't do anything right, it's just that they can't complete tasks efficiently.

    says who...?
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    inmytree wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    oh that evil gov't, you know, the one we've had for a couple hundred years...they can't do anything right... :roll:
    It's not that they can't do anything right, it's just that they can't complete tasks efficiently.

    says who...?
    Says I, matey!
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
Sign In or Register to comment.