#1 2010-02-02 11:57:32
How many times have you heard the Anointed One say, "Families making less than $250,000 will not see a dime in tax increases."? Welcome to the biggest lie yet..
This is a Reuters story, not a Fox News story, so all of you may read it without fear of being brainwashed.
...the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.
Bush tax breaks that will be eliminated include:
* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;
* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;
* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.
Offline
#2 2010-02-02 12:20:44
Sucks, but I guess we gotta pay for bringing democracy to Iraq and quashing Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction somehow.
Offline
#3 2010-02-02 12:39:50
Taint wrote:
Sucks, but I guess we gotta pay for bringing democracy to Iraq and quashing Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction somehow.
It's not democracy in Iraq that will cost us, it's socialism in America.
"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
Offline
#4 2010-02-02 13:06:01
Don't quote Thatcher to me unless ya want a shit storm Phwed. Weely, Weely, Weely.
Offline
#5 2010-02-02 13:54:27
At least Obama is willing to admit the tax increase is necessary due to what was left for him to fix. Paying for the blunders of, and appeasing the Right costs a lot of money. We have to continue a war started by lies and paid for in the blood of our children. Of course no real dollars were spent. We just created the debt so Dubya and Cheney could make their millions.
Who's really laughing now?
Offline
#6 2010-02-02 13:55:52
That's directly counter to the reporting I've heard (tax breaks expire for the highest bracket), and the story you linked to has been removed. I'd like to know what you think the definition of socialism is--seriously. This is a word that gets thrown around a lot, and people all seem to be working from different definitions.
Offline
#7 2010-02-02 14:01:28
This is from the liberal media matters, but still:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002020028
If your argument is about what Obama plans do do about taxes, that's where you can find said fucking plan. Note that there are wide discrepancies between what Obama's published plan is and what the article said the plan is.
Offline
#8 2010-02-02 14:08:56
ah297900 wrote:
That's directly counter to the reporting I've heard (tax breaks expire for the highest bracket), and the story you linked to has been removed. I'd like to know what you think the definition of socialism is--seriously. This is a word that gets thrown around a lot, and people all seem to be working from different definitions.
Yes, the story has been pulled. Hmmmmm, wonder why? Socialism is the political system in which government assumes ownership and administration of production and distribution of goods and services. Under capitalism these functions remain mostly in the pervue of private companies. If you really think the government can run banks, automobile manufacturing, health care, and other private industries more effeciently than the free market does, then socialism is for you.
Offline
#9 2010-02-02 14:57:05
Okay, accepting your definition, how does that relate to the budget deficits that ballooned before Obama took office? Indeed, deficits were consistently higher, and grew much faster, under Reagan, Bush and Bush than under Carter, Clinton? The government participation in ownership of some banks and auto makers (and one insurance company) does not even approach controlling either production or distribution. It was a limited engagement intended to prevent them from imminent collapse. You can argue about the wisdom of saving failing companies on "moral hazard" grounds, but characterizing it as a socialist takeover is silly (if that is what you are doing).
In any event, Phreddy, you are a broken record.
Offline
#10 2010-02-02 15:18:49
Let's look at this from a macro view with a little objectivity.
Reagen + Tax Cuts = Record Debt & Deficit
Bush + Tax Cuts = Record Debt & Deficit
Clinton - Tax Cuts = Record surplus
Bush + Tax Cuts = Record Debt & Deficit
Please tell me why these tax cuts were a good thing.
Offline
#11 2010-02-02 15:25:45
phreddy wrote:
It's not democracy in Iraq that will cost us ....
Once upon a time, I used every bit of funding I could scrounge and asked for more. War on any level ain't cheap.
Offline
#12 2010-02-02 15:34:41
MSG Tripps wrote:
phreddy wrote:
It's not democracy in Iraq that will cost us ....
Once upon a time, I used every bit of funding I could scrounge and asked for more. War on any level ain't cheap.
The breakdown to a city or county amount is interesting. While it doesn't quite work out as literally as the site would have it, it's intriguing to think about what your community could have done with even a fraction of that money had it not been used in Iraq. But I'm a little confused: if the government had used that money for, say, handouts to homeless programs or medical care here in San Francisco, that would be socialism. What do we call the handouts to the defense companies and contractors throughout the duration of both conflicts: economic stimulus packages?
Offline
#13 2010-02-02 15:57:42
Taint wrote:
What do we call ....
Hey Taint.
Call it what you will. I have no argument. I could give a rat's ass from where I stand. Bottom line; as long as I still get my take, I continue to laugh my ass off.
Offline
#14 2010-02-02 16:10:06
phreddy wrote:
ah297900 wrote:
That's directly counter to the reporting I've heard (tax breaks expire for the highest bracket), and the story you linked to has been removed. I'd like to know what you think the definition of socialism is--seriously. This is a word that gets thrown around a lot, and people all seem to be working from different definitions.
Yes, the story has been pulled. Hmmmmm, wonder why?
Because it was incorrect.
Socialism is the political system in which government assumes ownership and administration of production and distribution of goods and services. Under capitalism these functions remain mostly in the pervue of private companies.
How much ownership is socialism? Do public transportation, police, firefighting and education make us socialist?
If you really think the government can run banks, automobile manufacturing, health care, and other private industries more effeciently than the free market does, then socialism is for you.
Are these the free market companies that collapsed en masse a year ago? If you think the plan is to keep these companies permanently, you're just as wrong as the hippies who think we're planning to stay in Iraq permanently.
I have yet to understand why these bailouts are socialism and the S&L bailouts under Bush Sr. and the airline bailouts under Bush Jr. are not socialism.
Offline
#15 2010-02-02 16:21:48
Phweddy doesn't mind National Socialism in the least, come on, get with the program! What benefits Mr. Stockholm Syndrome's masters makes him a happy boy.
Offline
#18 2010-02-02 17:10:17
George Orr wrote:
I wouldn't bet that Congress holds the line at the $250,000 income limit for all the benefits the middle class now has from the Bush tax cuts. The deficit is huge and there will be pressure to close the gap. I couldn't easily find numbers for the total estimated income for that group, but I did find this. If you take 100% of all the income from families earning more than $160,000/year (top 5%), you could not balance this year's proposed budget.
Offline
#19 2010-02-02 18:47:01
phreddy wrote:
George Orr wrote:
I wouldn't bet that Congress holds the line at the $250,000 income limit for all the benefits the middle class now has from the Bush tax cuts. The deficit is huge and there will be pressure to close the gap. I couldn't easily find numbers for the total estimated income for that group, but I did find this. If you take 100% of all the income from families earning more than $160,000/year (top 5%), you could not balance this year's proposed budget.
Gee Phreddy, why not force the corporations to pay the taxes they owe the treasury? That and blame the folks who brought us this mess. Then ALL of us could get a tax cut.
As I've always said, it's hard to see the light when your head is up your ass. And, if you really must have your head up your ass, a wise man would keep his mouth closed.
Offline
#20 2010-02-02 19:43:12
Tall Paul wrote:
And, if you really must have your head up your ass, a wise man would keep his mouth closed.
Or at least brush and gargle regularly.
Offline
#21 2010-02-02 20:06:31
Taint is right. Hygiene is imperative.
Offline
#22 2010-02-02 21:32:57
Tall Paul wrote:
phreddy wrote:
George Orr wrote:
I wouldn't bet that Congress holds the line at the $250,000 income limit for all the benefits the middle class now has from the Bush tax cuts. The deficit is huge and there will be pressure to close the gap. I couldn't easily find numbers for the total estimated income for that group, but I did find this. If you take 100% of all the income from families earning more than $160,000/year (top 5%), you could not balance this year's proposed budget.
Gee Phreddy, why not force the corporations to pay the taxes they owe the treasury? That and blame the folks who brought us this mess. Then ALL of us could get a tax cut.
As I've always said, it's hard to see the light when your head is up your ass. And, if you really must have your head up your ass, a wise man would keep his mouth closed.
Gee Phreddy, why not make the Capital Gains Tax equivilant to the income tax - after all we all know that the ultra-rich (such as my bosses) only pay themselves with Capital Gains.
I'm just a lowly Independent but all I want is Gates and Buffet to pay the same tax rate as me, and that MUST encompass all income. Don't hand me that sad line that it will smother investment, it's not like they will give up all income in protest of that 20% haircut.
Offline
#23 2010-02-02 21:39:19
Oh and Phreddy, what you truly fail to understand is that there are more than a few of us on here who fall into that top 5% your biased article quoted. However outside of the far rightwing and far leftwing nutjobs the vast majority of Americans understand that paying taxes and serving our country is a patriotic duty.
Oh and we would love to see a copy of your DD-214 you unpatriotic son of a bitch.
Offline
#24 2010-02-03 10:18:13
Offline
#26 2010-02-08 13:09:21
Here is a little Business 101 for all the left-wing whack jobs on this board.
First, I will remind you that corporations are really only made up of people, and these people pay taxes. Regardless of what you hear on MSNBC or read on the Kos, corporations are not godzillas running loose and eating babies. The taxes corporations pay are merely another cost of doing business, just like rent, insurance, and cost of goods sold. All costs of doing business show up in the price of the goods and services the corporations sell. Now, I know this may surprise some of the thicker minds out there, but all taxes paid by corporations are passed on in the way of increased prices for those goods and services. Just so you understand, I will give you an example:
1. The government increases corporate taxes on Apple Computers and McDonalds
2. These corporations raise their prices to cover the tax.
3. You pay the taxes while posting to High-Street on your Mac while trying not to spill Special Sauce into your keyboard.
Is that clear? Class dismissed. Go back to bitching about things beyond your intellect.
Offline
#27 2010-02-08 13:20:04
phreddy wrote:
Here is a little Business 101 for all the left-wing whack jobs on this board.
First, I will remind you that corporations are really only made up of people, and these people pay taxes. Regardless of what you hear on MSNBC or read on the Kos, corporations are not godzillas running loose and eating babies. The taxes corporations pay are merely another cost of doing business, just like rent, insurance, and cost of goods sold. All costs of doing business show up in the price of the goods and services the corporations sell. Now, I know this may surprise some of the thicker minds out there, but all taxes paid by corporations are passed on in the way of increased prices for those goods and services. Just so you understand, I will give you an example:
1. The government increases corporate taxes on Apple Computers and McDonalds
2. These corporations raise their prices to cover the tax.
3. You pay the taxes while posting to High-Street on your Mac while trying not to spill Special Sauce into your keyboard.
Is that clear? Class dismissed. Go back to bitching about things beyond your intellect.
Correct - however in business school 201 you will find that a corporation called Apple Computer does not exist. You will also learn that while graduated taxes sounds unfair on the surface it is merely an equalization of taxes on disposable income Moreover capital gains tax is a tax on a form of earned income that is only available to the wealthy, the very fact that the cap gains tax is only half of what the middle class is taxed on their income is complete robbery.
Besides, it's not the Obama tax increase, it's the Bush tax increase. Had Bush not put an expiration date on the law your taxes would not be going up, ergo Bush scheduled this tax increase to occur.
In this case you are blaming Obama for not doing something, he simply did not pass a law to repeal the Bush tax increase.
Offline
#28 2010-02-08 14:33:45
Em wrote:
Correct - however in business school 201 you will find that a corporation called Apple Computer does not exist.
Thanks for identifying yourself as one of the thick ones Em. Here's your link to the NASDAQ listing for AAPL (Apple, Inc.).
Em wrote:
Besides, it's not the Obama tax increase, it's the Bush tax increase. Had Bush not put an expiration date on the law your taxes would not be going up, ergo Bush scheduled this tax increase to occur.
This is so loony that I don't know what to say to help you back to clarity.
Offline
#29 2010-02-08 15:16:15
phreddy wrote:
Em wrote:
Besides, it's not the Obama tax increase, it's the Bush tax increase. Had Bush not put an expiration date on the law your taxes would not be going up, ergo Bush scheduled this tax increase to occur.
This is so loony that I don't know what to say to help you back to clarity.
I've had it in my mind for some time that you were one of the board conservatives I had respect for, as you were a) not completely insane and b) were able to communicate your opinions with sound arguments (when you could be bothered), although I did not agree with them.
Is my memory going? Have I confused you with someone else? Has something happened to you? Have you checked your prescriptions lately?
Offline
#30 2010-02-08 15:33:42
Phreddy isn't really conservative. He's actually a raving leftie who delights in raising a ruckus and - unable to really stand out as a commie-loving pinko in this crowd - he baits the board with the most outrageous right-wing dribble just to get a reaction from us.
Couldn't you tell?
Offline
#31 2010-02-08 16:07:16
Taint wrote:
Phreddy isn't really conservative. He's actually a raving leftie who delights in raising a ruckus and - unable to really stand out as a commie-loving pinko in this crowd - he baits the board with the most outrageous right-wing dribble just to get a reaction from us.
Couldn't you tell?
Hey Taint! You're messing up my game! Gays are supposed to out closet homosexuals, not their brother liberals.
Offline
#32 2010-02-08 16:12:11
George Orr wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Em wrote:
Besides, it's not the Obama tax increase, it's the Bush tax increase. Had Bush not put an expiration date on the law your taxes would not be going up, ergo Bush scheduled this tax increase to occur.
This is so loony that I don't know what to say to help you back to clarity.
I've had it in my mind for some time that you were one of the board conservatives I had respect for, as you were a) not completely insane and b) were able to communicate your opinions with sound arguments (when you could be bothered), although I did not agree with them.
Is my memory going? Have I confused you with someone else? Has something happened to you? Have you checked your prescriptions lately?
Oh please Georgi. You can't be one of those blaming Bush for a tax increase because Congress wouldn't pass his tax cut in perpetuity. I've heard liberals blame lots of stuff on Bush (some of it with basis), but this one is just loony.
This would be like blaming you for all the ill-written posts on this board because you stopped correcting grammatical errors.
Last edited by phreddy (2010-02-08 16:18:03)
Offline
#33 2010-02-08 17:04:07
phraudski wrote:
Em wrote:
Correct - however in business school 201 you will find that a corporation called Apple Computer does not exist.
Thanks for identifying yourself as one of the thick ones Em. Here's your link to the NASDAQ listing for AAPL (Apple, Inc.)..
Damn - you are too easy.
phraudski wrote:
Em wrote:
Besides, it's not the Obama tax increase, it's the Bush tax increase. Had Bush not put an expiration date on the law your taxes would not be going up, ergo Bush scheduled this tax increase to occur.
This is so loony that I don't know what to say to help you back to clarity.
Try to follow the events Phreddy, it's not difficult to understand.
1. Because the economy was sagging George Bush and the Republican Congress enacted new tax law called: Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)
2. Bush's JGTRRA lowered taxes in 2003 for almost all tax paying entities
3. Summer 2003 Bush sent $59 Billion in stimulus checks to tax payers
4. Winter 2008 Bush sent $168 Billion in stimuluschecks to tax payers
5. Bush's JGTRRA raises taxes in 2010 to the previous or higher levels
Those are the facts, please explain what part of that has anything to do with the current administration.
Offline
#34 2010-02-08 17:08:39
phreddy wrote:
You can't be one of those blaming Bush for a tax increase because Congress wouldn't pass his tax cut in perpetuity.
Wait, he sponsored the bill and his republican dominated congress passed it. Explain your statement please.
Offline
#35 2010-02-08 18:58:06
Bush's checks were calculated to put the people receiving them into the next highest tax bracket, the wisest thing to do would have been to return them.
Offline
#36 2010-02-08 18:59:11
phreddy wrote:
Here is a little Business 101 for all the left-wing whack jobs on this board.
First, I will remind you that corporations are really only made up of people, and these people pay taxes. Regardless of what you hear on MSNBC or read on the Kos, corporations are not godzillas running loose and eating babies. The taxes corporations pay are merely another cost of doing business, just like rent, insurance, and cost of goods sold. All costs of doing business show up in the price of the goods and services the corporations sell. Now, I know this may surprise some of the thicker minds out there, but all taxes paid by corporations are passed on in the way of increased prices for those goods and services. Just so you understand, I will give you an example:
1. The government increases corporate taxes on Apple Computers and McDonalds
2. These corporations raise their prices to cover the tax.
3. You pay the taxes while posting to High-Street on your Mac while trying not to spill Special Sauce into your keyboard.
Is that clear? Class dismissed. Go back to bitching about things beyond your intellect.
Took you long enough!
Offline
#37 2010-02-08 19:08:11
Tall Paul wrote:
Bush's checks were calculated to put the people receiving them into the next highest tax bracket, the wisest thing to do would have been to return them.
I'm not sure how many people were teetering within $250 of the next tax bracket but I got a check and my bracket remained the same. Do you have a source?
Offline
#38 2010-02-08 19:27:16
Bigcat wrote:
Tall Paul wrote:
Bush's checks were calculated to put the people receiving them into the next highest tax bracket, the wisest thing to do would have been to return them.
I'm not sure how many people were teetering within $250 of the next tax bracket but I got a check and my bracket remained the same. Do you have a source?
Don't bother with him Cat. Anyone who believes that earning enough money to enter a higher tax bracket will somehow cause him to pay more in taxes on the rest of his earnings understands nothing about tax brackets and has probably never been in one.
Offline
#39 2010-02-08 19:29:32
True dat
Offline
#40 2010-02-08 20:04:34
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
