Taxing Yourself to Oblivion

EdsonNascimento

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/why-americans-are-giving-up-citizenship-in-record-numbers/ar-BBtKrxc?li=BBnbfcL

Taxes, taxes, taxes

Reminds me of the parable that goes something like - 6 people meet for beers every week and all split the cost. Bartender decides, hey, they come every week, I'll double the price. 2 of the friends unfortunately can't afford the new price, so won't be coming. The other 4 are such good people they say, don't worry about it, just pay what you can. We like your company. Slowly, those 2 start paying less and less as they realize the other 4 are willing to cover more and more. After a while, the bartender decides - hey, they keep coming, let me raise the price again. Another 2 say they can't afford the new price. Well, the "remaining" 2 say - no worries. We can cover the difference, just pay what you had been paying, and we'll be fine. Works for a short while until those 2nd 2 start wondering why they are paying so much when the 1st 2 now pay nothing. So, they start paying less and less. So, as not to disrupt the gathering they like so much the 2 payers tighten up elsewhere so they can continue the gathering. Then the bartender decides to raise the price per beer again. Now, the 5th one pulls the 6th one aside and says - dude, I'd love to keep doing this, but my wife really wants that vacation, and I can't keep doing this. The 6th says- I hear ya, but it's such a good time. Don't tell the others, and I'll cover the difference. So, 5 and 6 keep paying this way for a while. Then number 6 stops showing up. Number 5 picks up the tab that week, but decides at that moment - no way I'm coming next week. The next week the first 4 show up, get their beers and spend their last night together bitching that 5 and 6 ditched them and left them holding the check.

polaris_x

lame analogy ...

in any case ... americans aren't taxed that high unless you're in a few select states/places ... compare american taxation rates to any other oecd country ... then understand that no country would consider americans socialists in any way ... so, if you think americans are paying too much tax and yet do not qualify as a socialist country ... where is all that money going to? ... perhaps fueling the MIC or tax breaks for coporations?

Gern Blansten

yeah that is just ignorant

If you want to compare the US tax rate to other countries you have to factor in the % of income that you pay in the US for things that are provided for you in other countries. Depending on your income health care could be anywhere from 30% to 5% of your income.

rgambs

Hahaha taxation is only something a person worries about when their life is so good they have absolutely nothing else to occupy their anxieties.

Clearly America has it bad, I mean, it's terrible living in the most comfortable society on Earth with our taxes driving us into oblivion.

EdsonNascimento

Let's not take it so literal. Let's also not compare the US to other countries. That's 100% besides the point. I don't expect Canada to conform to the US anymore than I want the US to conform to anyone.

So, now the main issue - let's say this type of migration (not that specifically sited in the article, but just a general movement when someone of their own volition decides - I move) causes a loss of even $100M in tax revenue. How is that made up? And who is less mobile and more apt to be on the hook (if we in fact ever intend to pay for all the stuff we like to buy)?

polaris_x

the problem with your analogy is that it continues to represent this mythological concept of social construct ... that the wealthy pay for everything ...

also - if your concern is about tax revenue loss due to migration ... maybe consider letting people into your country legally and allow them to earn a fair wage where they can contribute to the tax pool ... on top of that - maybe look to see how the panama papers show who's been avoiding contributing to the tax pool ...

EdsonNascimento

Ha, ha, ha. The US has the greatest immigration of any country in the world. We have legal means to become a citizen. I think that comment is beyond hysterical. We are trying to stop ILLEGAL immigration b/c that's a drain on resources and takes jobs from people who are trying to do it the legal way. If it's not quick enough, those people should try another country. We don't make them stay.

That being said, you are arguing a totally different point. Even if they earned a "fair" wage, they'd be contributing very little to the tax pool (if at all).

As for avoiding taxes - I agree, but that's one in the same argument isn't it? Those are people that are leaving without leaving, but the concept is the same. I don't like that either, and it's illegal, but it only further serves to prove my point.

So, I will ask again - if you lose $100M in tax revenue who pays? (and that neglects to add all the ILLEGAL - as in breaking the law - "residents" you want the US to grant legal status to w/o following the same proper legal process that millions each year do).

lukin2006

Taxes aren't the problem ... Governments who spend like drunken sailors on pie in the sky ideas without so much of a shred of a business plan is the problem.

Gern Blansten

lukin2006 said:

Taxes aren't the problem ... Governments who spend like drunken sailors on pie in the sky ideas without so much of a shred of a business plan is the problem.

exactly....going to war without paying for it comes to mind

EdsonNascimento

lukin2006 said:

Taxes aren't the problem ... Governments who spend like drunken sailors on pie in the sky ideas without so much of a shred of a business plan is the problem.

Agree.

EdsonNascimento

Gern Blansten said:

lukin2006 said:

Taxes aren't the problem ... Governments who spend like drunken sailors on pie in the sky ideas without so much of a shred of a business plan is the problem.

exactly....going to war without paying for it comes to mind

Or, enlarging yet another entitlement program ignoring the experts and without anyone reading it nor a method of payment.

rgambs

EdsonNascimento said:

Ha, ha, ha. The US has the greatest immigration of any country in the world. We have legal means to become a citizen. I think that comment is beyond hysterical. We are trying to stop ILLEGAL immigration b/c that's a drain on resources and takes jobs from people who are trying to do it the legal way. If it's not quick enough, those people should try another country. We don't make them stay.

That being said, you are arguing a totally different point. Even if they earned a "fair" wage, they'd be contributing very little to the tax pool (if at all).

As for avoiding taxes - I agree, but that's one in the same argument isn't it? Those are people that are leaving without leaving, but the concept is the same. I don't like that either, and it's illegal, but it only further serves to prove my point.

So, I will ask again - if you lose $100M in tax revenue who pays? (and that neglects to add all the ILLEGAL - as in breaking the law - "residents" you want the US to grant legal status to w/o following the same proper legal process that millions each year do).

Of course it couldn't be the corporations that are hiding TRILLIONS in offshore accounts.
You would never support that, would you?

EdsonNascimento

rgambs said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Ha, ha, ha. The US has the greatest immigration of any country in the world. We have legal means to become a citizen. I think that comment is beyond hysterical. We are trying to stop ILLEGAL immigration b/c that's a drain on resources and takes jobs from people who are trying to do it the legal way. If it's not quick enough, those people should try another country. We don't make them stay.

That being said, you are arguing a totally different point. Even if they earned a "fair" wage, they'd be contributing very little to the tax pool (if at all).

As for avoiding taxes - I agree, but that's one in the same argument isn't it? Those are people that are leaving without leaving, but the concept is the same. I don't like that either, and it's illegal, but it only further serves to prove my point.

So, I will ask again - if you lose $100M in tax revenue who pays? (and that neglects to add all the ILLEGAL - as in breaking the law - "residents" you want the US to grant legal status to w/o following the same proper legal process that millions each year do).

Of course it couldn't be the corporations that are hiding TRILLIONS in offshore accounts.
You would never support that, would you?

I don't support that if it's illegal. If it's illegal, it's illegal. However, if it's legal, then change the laws and see what happens. It's not so simple. Calling it hiding leads the question. But, again, this only further serves to prove my point.

Again, you're arguing how the money is migrating, I am asking - how are you going to pay for lost revenue when the money walks out the door and who is left holding the bag?

lukin2006

According to Tim Cook ... CEO of Apple it's the us tax code that's screwed up ... It was designed for the Industrial Age, not the digital / technology age and these corporations are not hiding as much as the media and politicians make out ... The money kept overseas is money earned overseas and if Apple as an example were to repatriate the money they have overseas they'd pay 40% tax ... So why should those companies pay tax to the a government where the revenue was earned elsewhere?

rgambs

EdsonNascimento said:

rgambs said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Ha, ha, ha. The US has the greatest immigration of any country in the world. We have legal means to become a citizen. I think that comment is beyond hysterical. We are trying to stop ILLEGAL immigration b/c that's a drain on resources and takes jobs from people who are trying to do it the legal way. If it's not quick enough, those people should try another country. We don't make them stay.

That being said, you are arguing a totally different point. Even if they earned a "fair" wage, they'd be contributing very little to the tax pool (if at all).

As for avoiding taxes - I agree, but that's one in the same argument isn't it? Those are people that are leaving without leaving, but the concept is the same. I don't like that either, and it's illegal, but it only further serves to prove my point.

So, I will ask again - if you lose $100M in tax revenue who pays? (and that neglects to add all the ILLEGAL - as in breaking the law - "residents" you want the US to grant legal status to w/o following the same proper legal process that millions each year do).

Of course it couldn't be the corporations that are hiding TRILLIONS in offshore accounts.
You would never support that, would you?

I don't support that if it's illegal. If it's illegal, it's illegal. However, if it's legal, then change the laws and see what happens. It's not so simple. Calling it hiding leads the question. But, again, this only further serves to prove my point.

Again, you're arguing how the money is migrating, I am asking - how are you going to pay for lost revenue when the money walks out the door and who is left holding the bag?

You change the laws and enforce those being broken to stop the money from migrating, it's that simple. Make GE (for instance) pay taxes. Take away subsidies for incredibly profitable energy companies and corporations taking advantage of a system set up to benefit the richest groups and individuals.
Increase and enforce import taxes for those who walk away with their money but still want to sell the goods and services in America.

Gern Blansten

EdsonNascimento said:

Gern Blansten said:

lukin2006 said:

Taxes aren't the problem ... Governments who spend like drunken sailors on pie in the sky ideas without so much of a shred of a business plan is the problem.

exactly....going to war without paying for it comes to mind

Or, enlarging yet another entitlement program ignoring the experts and without anyone reading it nor a method of payment.

Try again....google "net investment income tax", plus the penalty for non-coverage

EdsonNascimento

Gern Blansten said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Gern Blansten said:

lukin2006 said:

Taxes aren't the problem ... Governments who spend like drunken sailors on pie in the sky ideas without so much of a shred of a business plan is the problem.

exactly....going to war without paying for it comes to mind

Or, enlarging yet another entitlement program ignoring the experts and without anyone reading it nor a method of payment.

Try again....google "net investment income tax", plus the penalty for non-coverage

Ha, ha, ha. Yep. That's what's going to pay for it. This is the problem with entitlement programs. They are built on pie in the sky funding mechanisms.

Penalty for non-coverage. Oh. Good one. I'm not even sure that's a drop in the bucket. Whoo. Thank you. Needed a good laugh this afternoon.

Gern Blansten

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/23/451200436/mitt-romney-finally-takes-credit-for-obamacare

keep laughing...it's the exact same plan that the repubs would have used. Romney was begging for it

EdsonNascimento

rgambs said:

EdsonNascimento said:

rgambs said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Ha, ha, ha. The US has the greatest immigration of any country in the world. We have legal means to become a citizen. I think that comment is beyond hysterical. We are trying to stop ILLEGAL immigration b/c that's a drain on resources and takes jobs from people who are trying to do it the legal way. If it's not quick enough, those people should try another country. We don't make them stay.

That being said, you are arguing a totally different point. Even if they earned a "fair" wage, they'd be contributing very little to the tax pool (if at all).

As for avoiding taxes - I agree, but that's one in the same argument isn't it? Those are people that are leaving without leaving, but the concept is the same. I don't like that either, and it's illegal, but it only further serves to prove my point.

So, I will ask again - if you lose $100M in tax revenue who pays? (and that neglects to add all the ILLEGAL - as in breaking the law - "residents" you want the US to grant legal status to w/o following the same proper legal process that millions each year do).

Of course it couldn't be the corporations that are hiding TRILLIONS in offshore accounts.
You would never support that, would you?

I don't support that if it's illegal. If it's illegal, it's illegal. However, if it's legal, then change the laws and see what happens. It's not so simple. Calling it hiding leads the question. But, again, this only further serves to prove my point.

Again, you're arguing how the money is migrating, I am asking - how are you going to pay for lost revenue when the money walks out the door and who is left holding the bag?

You change the laws and enforce those being broken to stop the money from migrating, it's that simple. Make GE (for instance) pay taxes. Take away subsidies for incredibly profitable energy companies and corporations taking advantage of a system set up to benefit the richest groups and individuals.
Increase and enforce import taxes for those who walk away with their money but still want to sell the goods and services in America.

Again, you're answering the question with the question. Let's say you could accomplish all this revisionist stuff and that it's actually all true - THAT'S THE POINT!!!!!

so, keep taxing and see what the rich do. Now, can you please answer my question - when they "leave" (which according to you they already have) who's paying for stuff?

polaris_x

sooo ... what are you proposing!?? ... make the game EVEN more favourable to the rich so they will consider staying and not hiding money or leveraging loopholes? ...

gimmesometruth27

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/23/451200436/mitt-romney-finally-takes-credit-for-obamacare

keep laughing...it's the exact same plan that the repubs would have used. Romney was begging for it

thank you for pointing it out.

you would think the revisionists on here had never heard of romneycare before. :facepalm:

gimmesometruth27

rgambs said:

Hahaha taxation is only something a person worries about when their life is so good they have absolutely nothing else to occupy their anxieties.

Clearly America has it bad, I mean, it's terrible living in the most comfortable society on Earth with our taxes driving us into oblivion.

yeah i don't know how i am going to stay afloat with my 15% tax rate, all of which is taken out of my paycheck before i even receive my check.... so it is like i never had that money to begin with. so it is basically like i am not missing it at all. but i am going to complain about it loudly!!!!

what dreams

15% . . . Is that for real? What do I have to do to get a 15% tax rate?

All I know is that as a teacher, I've had to work two or three jobs to make it month to month for almost my entire career. The only time I was able to afford the luxury of only working one job was for a few years under the Bush tax cuts. Those of you living large may poo-poo a $200/month difference, but when you are living hand to mouth, it's huge. Then Obama came along, promising that people like me would be just fine, and Congress allowed the tax cut to expire. Guess who's working two jobs again? It's either that, or charging groceries and gas on a credit card the last week of the month.

I am not an economist and will not claim to understand the intricacies of the tax code, but it's fucked. I'm not married, I have no kids, no house, no charitable contributions. I'm not a farmer or a railroad worker, I'm not in school, nothing. The standard deduction is my only friend. It pisses me off to no end that the government uses the tax code for social engineering purposes -- to promote this or support that kind of lifestyle. It's bullshit. Why do I get no breaks just because I choose to be childless and I don't want to be tied to a house?

And these people who talk about these rates being so low compared to whatever measure . . . Do they count all the other myriad taxes and fees besides income? We pay sales tax, gas tax, meals tax, tourism tax, tolls on the highway, car taxes and tags, registrations, and inspections, communications tax, surcharges on electric and water, 2.5% on FOOD. I gotta pay the government just to eat!!!. . . If you add all that shit up, I'm easily forking 50% of my income over to some government entity. I'm being robbed blind!

rgambs

what dreams said:

15% . . . Is that for real? What do I have to do to get a 15% tax rate?

All I know is that as a teacher, I've had to work two or three jobs to make it month to month for almost my entire career. The only time I was able to afford the luxury of only working one job was for a few years under the Bush tax cuts. Those of you living large may poo-poo a $200/month difference, but when you are living hand to mouth, it's huge. Then Obama came along, promising that people like me would be just fine, and Congress allowed the tax cut to expire. Guess who's working two jobs again? It's either that, or charging groceries and gas on a credit card the last week of the month.

I am not an economist and will not claim to understand the intricacies of the tax code, but it's fucked. I'm not married, I have no kids, no house, no charitable contributions. I'm not a farmer or a railroad worker, I'm not in school, nothing. The standard deduction is my only friend. It pisses me off to no end that the government uses the tax code for social engineering purposes -- to promote this or support that kind of lifestyle. It's bullshit. Why do I get no breaks just because I choose to be childless and I don't want to be tied to a house?

And these people who talk about these rates being so low compared to whatever measure . . . Do they count all the other myriad taxes and fees besides income? We pay sales tax, gas tax, meals tax, tourism tax, tolls on the highway, car taxes and tags, registrations, and inspections, communications tax, surcharges on electric and water, 2.5% on FOOD. I gotta pay the government just to eat!!!. . . If you add all that shit up, I'm easily forking 50% of my income over to some government entity. I'm being robbed blind!

Something doesn't seem right here. If you make so little that you live hand to mouth then your tax rate shouldn't be much more than 15% unless you are living luxuriously. 200$ a month difference seems like way more than makes sense for the Bush tax cuts expiring, unless you are actually making pretty damn good money. It wasn't nearly so much for myself or my old man, who was making about 45k a year. Also, I don't know any teachers that struggle nearly that much, they all get summer jobs that make up a nice chunk of their income and none have Ever needed second jobs.
Maybe I am wrong, but it doesn't match at all what my experience has been as a pretty lowly paid worker.

Edit*
You aren't being robbed blind, you are being overcharged, if that.
Our taxes go a long way towards maintaining this as the safest and most comfortable country on the planet.

josevolution

EdsonNascimento said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/why-americans-are-giving-up-citizenship-in-record-numbers/ar-BBtKrxc?li=BBnbfcL

Taxes, taxes, taxes

Reminds me of the parable that goes something like - 6 people meet for beers every week and all split the cost. Bartender decides, hey, they come every week, I'll double the price. 2 of the friends unfortunately can't afford the new price, so won't be coming. The other 4 are such good people they say, don't worry about it, just pay what you can. We like your company. Slowly, those 2 start paying less and less as they realize the other 4 are willing to cover more and more. After a while, the bartender decides - hey, they keep coming, let me raise the price again. Another 2 say they can't afford the new price. Well, the "remaining" 2 say - no worries. We can cover the difference, just pay what you had been paying, and we'll be fine. Works for a short while until those 2nd 2 start wondering why they are paying so much when the 1st 2 now pay nothing. So, they start paying less and less. So, as not to disrupt the gathering they like so much the 2 payers tighten up elsewhere so they can continue the gathering. Then the bartender decides to raise the price per beer again. Now, the 5th one pulls the 6th one aside and says - dude, I'd love to keep doing this, but my wife really wants that vacation, and I can't keep doing this. The 6th says- I hear ya, but it's such a good time. Don't tell the others, and I'll cover the difference. So, 5 and 6 keep paying this way for a while. Then number 6 stops showing up. Number 5 picks up the tab that week, but decides at that moment - no way I'm coming next week. The next week the first 4 show up, get their beers and spend their last night together bitching that 5 and 6 ditched them and left them holding the check.

Ok so you posed the ? What's your answer please tell us how you want things to be ? Please give us your tax plan

PJfanwillneverleave1

rgambs said:

what dreams said:

15% . . . Is that for real? What do I have to do to get a 15% tax rate?

All I know is that as a teacher, I've had to work two or three jobs to make it month to month for almost my entire career. The only time I was able to afford the luxury of only working one job was for a few years under the Bush tax cuts. Those of you living large may poo-poo a $200/month difference, but when you are living hand to mouth, it's huge. Then Obama came along, promising that people like me would be just fine, and Congress allowed the tax cut to expire. Guess who's working two jobs again? It's either that, or charging groceries and gas on a credit card the last week of the month.

I am not an economist and will not claim to understand the intricacies of the tax code, but it's fucked. I'm not married, I have no kids, no house, no charitable contributions. I'm not a farmer or a railroad worker, I'm not in school, nothing. The standard deduction is my only friend. It pisses me off to no end that the government uses the tax code for social engineering purposes -- to promote this or support that kind of lifestyle. It's bullshit. Why do I get no breaks just because I choose to be childless and I don't want to be tied to a house?

And these people who talk about these rates being so low compared to whatever measure . . . Do they count all the other myriad taxes and fees besides income? We pay sales tax, gas tax, meals tax, tourism tax, tolls on the highway, car taxes and tags, registrations, and inspections, communications tax, surcharges on electric and water, 2.5% on FOOD. I gotta pay the government just to eat!!!. . . If you add all that shit up, I'm easily forking 50% of my income over to some government entity. I'm being robbed blind!

Something doesn't seem right here. If you make so little that you live hand to mouth then your tax rate shouldn't be much more than 15% unless you are living luxuriously. 200$ a month difference seems like way more than makes sense for the Bush tax cuts expiring, unless you are actually making pretty damn good money. It wasn't nearly so much for myself or my old man, who was making about 45k a year. Also, I don't know any teachers that struggle nearly that much, they all get summer jobs that make up a nice chunk of their income and none have Ever needed second jobs.
Maybe I am wrong, but it doesn't match at all what my experience has been as a pretty lowly paid worker.

Edit*
You aren't being robbed blind, you are being overcharged, if that.
Our taxes go a long way towards maintaining this as the safest and most comfortable country on the planet.

Explain how a no war attitude can support this?

oftenreading

rgambs said:

what dreams said:

15% . . . Is that for real? What do I have to do to get a 15% tax rate?

All I know is that as a teacher, I've had to work two or three jobs to make it month to month for almost my entire career. The only time I was able to afford the luxury of only working one job was for a few years under the Bush tax cuts. Those of you living large may poo-poo a $200/month difference, but when you are living hand to mouth, it's huge. Then Obama came along, promising that people like me would be just fine, and Congress allowed the tax cut to expire. Guess who's working two jobs again? It's either that, or charging groceries and gas on a credit card the last week of the month.

I am not an economist and will not claim to understand the intricacies of the tax code, but it's fucked. I'm not married, I have no kids, no house, no charitable contributions. I'm not a farmer or a railroad worker, I'm not in school, nothing. The standard deduction is my only friend. It pisses me off to no end that the government uses the tax code for social engineering purposes -- to promote this or support that kind of lifestyle. It's bullshit. Why do I get no breaks just because I choose to be childless and I don't want to be tied to a house?

And these people who talk about these rates being so low compared to whatever measure . . . Do they count all the other myriad taxes and fees besides income? We pay sales tax, gas tax, meals tax, tourism tax, tolls on the highway, car taxes and tags, registrations, and inspections, communications tax, surcharges on electric and water, 2.5% on FOOD. I gotta pay the government just to eat!!!. . . If you add all that shit up, I'm easily forking 50% of my income over to some government entity. I'm being robbed blind!

Something doesn't seem right here. If you make so little that you live hand to mouth then your tax rate shouldn't be much more than 15% unless you are living luxuriously. 200$ a month difference seems like way more than makes sense for the Bush tax cuts expiring, unless you are actually making pretty damn good money. It wasn't nearly so much for myself or my old man, who was making about 45k a year. Also, I don't know any teachers that struggle nearly that much, they all get summer jobs that make up a nice chunk of their income and none have Ever needed second jobs.
Maybe I am wrong, but it doesn't match at all what my experience has been as a pretty lowly paid worker.

Edit*
You aren't being robbed blind, you are being overcharged, if that.
Our taxes go a long way towards maintaining this as the safest and most comfortable country on the planet.

Pardon me? By what measure is the US the safest and most comfortable country on the planet?

Smellyman

what dreams said:

15% . . . Is that for real? What do I have to do to get a 15% tax rate?

All I know is that as a teacher, I've had to work two or three jobs to make it month to month for almost my entire career. The only time I was able to afford the luxury of only working one job was for a few years under the Bush tax cuts. Those of you living large may poo-poo a $200/month difference, but when you are living hand to mouth, it's huge. Then Obama came along, promising that people like me would be just fine, and Congress allowed the tax cut to expire. Guess who's working two jobs again? It's either that, or charging groceries and gas on a credit card the last week of the month.

I am not an economist and will not claim to understand the intricacies of the tax code, but it's fucked. I'm not married, I have no kids, no house, no charitable contributions. I'm not a farmer or a railroad worker, I'm not in school, nothing. The standard deduction is my only friend. It pisses me off to no end that the government uses the tax code for social engineering purposes -- to promote this or support that kind of lifestyle. It's bullshit. Why do I get no breaks just because I choose to be childless and I don't want to be tied to a house?

And these people who talk about these rates being so low compared to whatever measure . . . Do they count all the other myriad taxes and fees besides income? We pay sales tax, gas tax, meals tax, tourism tax, tolls on the highway, car taxes and tags, registrations, and inspections, communications tax, surcharges on electric and water, 2.5% on FOOD. I gotta pay the government just to eat!!!. . . If you add all that shit up, I'm easily forking 50% of my income over to some government entity. I'm being robbed blind!

Are you trying to live like Trump? I know tons of teachers and none work two jobs.

50% of your income to the government on a teachers salary CANNOT BE TRUE

what dreams

Who are all of you to judge how I live? My rent alone in the DC metro area, for a 1 bedroom apartment built in 1986, is $1500. If trying to live by myself as single 46 year-old woman in the community where I work is "living like Trump," then just go fuck you if you choose to live in a trailer in the woods among the Amish. I don't even know why I bother to participate in these discussions. These threads are full of nothing but condescending know-it-alls who think they are going to change the world by telling everybody else how to live and breathe, including how to run my own household finances on a salary that hasn't changed since 2008, no thanks to Obama and his grand economic succces. I should be so lucky to know everything.

what dreams

Correction: my income DID change under Obama. IT WENT DOWN. In the year the tax cuts expired, it was $120 less a month. Another year, in response to all the anti-teacher rhetoric because we're all living like Trump, the state shifted the burden of retirement contributions onto teachers -- another $50 in lowered benefits. In the year after the ACA, my school district overhauled its health benefits, so my premium increased by $30 for much shittier coverage, and next year they are implementing a $2000 deductible including office visits. So there goes that "benefit." Thanks, Obama, for all the hope and change I voted for.

Gern Blansten

what dreams said:

Correction: my income DID change under Obama. IT WENT DOWN. In the year the tax cuts expired, it was $120 less a month. Another year, in response to all the anti-teacher rhetoric because we're all living like Trump, the state shifted the burden of retirement contributions onto teachers -- another $50 in lowered benefits. In the year after the ACA, my school district overhauled its health benefits, so my premium increased by $30 for much shittier coverage, and next year they are implementing a $2000 deductible including office visits. So there goes that "benefit." Thanks, Obama, for all the hope and change I voted for.

excuse me...the tax cuts that you are talking about were a stimulus. That was always temporary. Obama didn't change anything...the GOP congress voted to let those cuts expire and that is what happened. They blasted Obama for not doing away with the expiration but if he would have extended it they would have blasted him for increasing the deficit.

I would bet that you pay very little federal income tax. If you have a child you are paying $0 income tax so quit exaggerating.