First Stimulus, Now "Deficit Reduction".

[edwardsfire]

Does anyone like taxes?

Jimmy Carter sure did.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Thank you Mr. President!!!!! I just hope he doesn't decrease domestic spending during the next two years, that we be terrible for the economy, but please decrease military spending overseas as much as possible.

 

[ntsammy5]

Jimmy Carter sure did.

he loved peanuts and Billy beer too

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

I don't think some want to see the total affect this will have on the amount of money to government has to spend.

Let's say that a person could work a little overtime or the wife could go back to work and earn just enough to move into the next tax bracket. Would they choose to do that? What gain does it give them if the little extra money is just taken in tax? That has always been the case when making finical decisions for a household.

But now the tax is for an even lower amount of pay. So people will look at what they earn and try to move downward to the lower bracket thus paying less in tax and working less in hours. Most people would choose to work less hours to bring home the same amount or more after taxes. I think many people are already trying to figure out the break even point.

I think many are concerned that as people adjust work hours/pay and the tax revenue falls, the administration will again lower the bracket to keep tax dollars coming in at a required level and it will be continuous circle where no one gets ahead.

Can't be done. Not the way the current tax system is set up. Mathematically impossible, if I'm not mistaken. You can't earn less, and take home more, no matter how high taxes are raised for big earners.

 

[corndog]

slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Thank you Mr. President!!!!! I just hope he doesn't decrease domestic spending during the next two years, that we be terrible for the economy, but please decrease military spending overseas as much as possible.

I thought Obama was doubling down on Afghanistan (despite the fact that Afghanistan did not attack us and is not a threat to us). How is he going to double the boots on the ground there and slash related spending at the same time? I guess we're just not supposed to ask?

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

I thought Obama was doubling down on Afghanistan (despite the fact that Afghanistan did not attack us and is not a threat to us). How is he going to double the boots on the ground there and slash related spending at the same time? I guess we're just not supposed to ask?

There are plenty of ways. Maybe the fat corporate contracts are going to be cut. Maybe all money will go to pay for US soldiers as opposed to Polish engineers and Nepalese construction workers. Don't know, don't care. I welcome any decrease in US spending overseas.

 

[corndog]

I welcome any decrease in US spending overseas.

It would certainly be a welcome surprise.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

It would certainly be a welcome surprise.

I agree. The US has always put its interests abroad over its interests at home. If the scale begins to tip towards the American People, it will be a welcome surprise.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Not all of the taxes that will be generated by letting the Bush tax cuts expire will be given back in tax cuts.

I know, Obama's going to use part of the money to pay for his spendulus payoffs. Only a few bucks are going to his "tax cuts"..truly "just a few".

Yes, I guess some would rather make less to spite the government instead of seeing what their full protential might be.

I don't think the average American business owner would consider that an incentive. "Work long hours, risk you home and life savings...all so you can "give" the government more $$$$." All the while, being called evil and ungrateful.

Under President Bush, if you worked, you got a tax cut. Now under Obama, if you don't work, you get a tax cut. Interesting math. We have more than done our share, and paid our share, but if you feel you haven't, write an extra check to the IRS and send it in. They will be happy to accept it on your behalf.

Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase



*Please note:

the amount listed is
Not actual.

Thanks for the disclaimer. I was trying to "do" the Obama Math for the bracket above. Okay, from what I understand...the current top rate is 35%. It will return to 39.6% when Bush's tax cuts expire. This will be implemented for income over $250K. $121 increase for income between..$226,919-$603,402? I don't "get it"? By my calculations 4.6% of $353,402 comes to $16256.49. This is a "wee" bit more than $121.

BTW, I choose the above bracket because this was the first increase. $353,402 is the difference between $250,000 and $603,402.

 

[DawnCt1]

There are plenty of ways. Maybe the fat corporate contracts are going to be cut. Maybe all money will go to pay for US soldiers as opposed to Polish engineers and Nepalese construction workers. Don't know, don't care. I welcome any decrease in US spending overseas.

You DO realize that there is NO infrastructure in Afghanistan. It is akin to the "wild west". My brother, who has done two tours there, can't imagine where they are going to put 17,000 soldiers, except in sprawling tent cities. Winter is severe there. This is essentially a country with a very limited central government. They need US soldiers but they also need Polish engineers, Nepalese construction workers, European teachers, lawyers, social service personal, etc, etc, etc. Yet, we cannot afford to abandon Afghanistan because Al Qaeda will move back in. Don't forget, that Pakinstan is also unstable.

 

[DawnCt1]

I agree. The US has always put its interests abroad over its interests at home. If the scale begins to tip towards the American People, it will be a welcome surprise.

Stability abroad helps ensure our safety at home.

 

[Disneycrazymom]

Steve in Brooklyn - I am not going to spend the evening arguing with you I assume you do not run your own business by what you have said here. Our tax accountant and financial planner have helped us each year find the break even point for hours worked vs tax paid vs what we want the overall income for the year. When you work for yourself it is essential to know these figures and decide how many hours are needed to be profitable. It is always a bit of a task to find the right number but there are defiantly times in a business when it is best to hold back and work less.

 

[DancingBear]

Steve in Brooklyn - I am not going to spend the evening arguing with you I assume you do not run your own business by what you have said here. Our tax accountant and financial planner have helped us each year find the break even point for hours worked vs tax paid vs what we want the overall income for the year. When you work for yourself it is essential to know these figures and decide how many hours are needed to be profitable. It is always a bit of a task to find the right number but there are defiantly times in a business when it is best to hold back and work less.

I do own a small business and what Steve said is exactly right. There's no way if you make more taxable income that you take home less just because you move into a higher tax bracket. I'm not sure what you're talking about with your tax accountant and financial planner--"deciding how many hours are needed to be profitable" sounds like what you need to cover your fixed costs. The taxable amount is only the profit amount.

 

[ntsammy5]

Don't forget, that Pakinstan is also unstable.

I lose sleep at night worrying about those yahoos and their nuclear arsenal.

 

[disney1990]

Today's headline--

POLITICIAN KEEPS CAMPAIGN PROMISE
THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST HIM DON'T LIKE IT

 

[TLSnell1981]

I do own a small business and what Steve said is exactly right. There's no way if you make more taxable income that you take home less just because you move into a higher tax bracket. I'm not sure what you're talking about with your tax accountant and financial planner--"deciding how many hours are needed to be profitable" sounds like what you need to cover your fixed costs. The taxable amount is only the profit amount.

It's a little more complicated.... It boils down to how much capital you must invest, the risks and the return. What is the true cost when you factor in energy, time and money? A few "percentage points".. one way or the other...makes a difference.

 

[MrsPete]

Mark my words, he wont be re elected.
Just let him do what he wants, it will fail.

I said that before he was elected -- well, actually I said that no matter which candidate won, he was destined to fail because too many people are looking to the government to provide a quick-and-easy answer that'll allow us to return to our over-spending ways. I said that whichever candidate won would be a one-term wonder and would not be re-elected.

If government doesn't creat jobs, what exactly are the thousands of state and federal employees that say they go to work everyday doing then? Isn't/Wasn't your husband a doctor in the miliary? If he isn't/wasn't employed by the government, then who paid him?

You weren't asking me, but this is a half-truth. The government DOES employ some people: military people, Congress, the president himself, and lots more. Always has, always will. BUT the government cannot get us out of this crisis by creating jobs out of thing air. They cannot put all of America on the payroll to wipe out economic difficulties.

 

[MrsPete]

Yes, I guess some would rather make less to spite the government instead of seeing what their full protential might be.

I don't work to see what my full potential might be. I work to earn money to support my family, and I have a hard time understanding why it's a "bad thing" that I want to keep what I've earned. Of course we have to pay taxes for roads, the military, and other things that must be provided by the government, but looking at the percentage of my paycheck that goes to taxes, it's just way out of hand. And I'm middle-middle class!

 

[disney1990]

--The Earned Income Tax Credit would be expanded for poor families with three or more children that pay no income taxes. More than 22 million families qualify for the credit, one of the government's largest anti-poverty programs.

So is this the part of the Economic Stimulus Plan that you object to?

Family doesn't make enough money to pay taxes, but receives a tax credit? This doesn't mean that this family doesn't work hard to earn money, just that they don't earn enough to survive.

 

[MrsPete]

Let me get this straight. Let's say your business has the potential to make $350,000 instead of $250,000. Under the current system, you would pocket approximately 64,000. If the marginal tax rate goes up 3.5%, you would pocket 60,500. Instead, you'd rather pocket nothing than give up a small fraction of that extra income? Does anyone else see this as silly?

You're ignoring the real cost of earning that money. Let's use your example and assume that your business has the potential to earn $350,000. With these tax rules, these are your real choices:

1. Work your fingers to the bone 75 hours a week, spend little time with your family, build up a business that'll employ people in your community, build a business that you can someday leave to your children . . . earn a whopping $350,000 and give much of it to the government.

2. Work a more moderate 50 hours a week, have time to see your kids' ballgame, bypass opportunities to expand your business, and keep your business small . . . still earn a respectable $250,000 and pay a smaller portion in taxes.