First Stimulus, Now "Deficit Reduction".

[corndog]

Okay, lets not pay taxes, lets pay out of pocket for all that we need. Lets put tolls on every major road, so that when they need to be repaired, everyone who has ever driven on it pays for it. Private streets are paid for by those who live on them. Lets have a schedule to decides who picks up the garbage left on the side of the streets and to mow the grass along the medians. Let us each pay the full cost of educating our children, lets allow us to get sick off of food items such as peanut butter and pay for the investigation into where the source might be. Lets pay for the police protection and decide what criminals we decide should be brought to "justice" and pay for their daily cost in a jail... let us pay for the wars to keep our country safe if we determine by a majority vote that it is necessary. The bill is in the mail. There really is a reason that somewhere along the line they decided that taxation was a necessary evil... do I enjoy paying them, no I don't but since DH and I both have jobs thanks to the Government, my parents and grandparents had private sector jobs that wouldn't have existed had it not been for government contracts.... I just decided that all my tax dollars go to me... rather than the places I would prefer not to think about...

The only thing on your list is that the federal government is even allowed to do under the constitution is war. The rest is left to the states. That was the whole point of our republic--to allow for the competition of ideas among the states. There's a big difference between the feds doing all of those things and the people of individual states choosing to do those things.

 

[Charade]

BTW, the government funds a lot of basic research that ends up making a lot of money (and creating a lot of jobs) in the private sector. Al Gore didn't invent the internet (nor did he claim to), but the government paid for its invention.

That's because they have really REALLY REALLY deep pockets.

Yours, mine and everyone else's.

 

[CowboyCO]

Okay, lets not pay taxes, lets pay out of pocket for all that we need. Lets put tolls on every major road, so that when they need to be repaired, everyone who has ever driven on it pays for it. Private streets are paid for by those who live on them. Lets have a schedule to decides who picks up the garbage left on the side of the streets and to mow the grass along the medians. Let us each pay the full cost of educating our children, lets allow us to get sick off of food items such as peanut butter and pay for the investigation into where the source might be. Lets pay for the police protection and decide what criminals we decide should be brought to "justice" and pay for their daily cost in a jail... let us pay for the wars to keep our country safe if we determine by a majority vote that it is necessary. The bill is in the mail. There really is a reason that somewhere along the line they decided that taxation was a necessary evil... do I enjoy paying them, no I don't but since DH and I both have jobs thanks to the Government, my parents and grandparents had private sector jobs that wouldn't have existed had it not been for government contracts.... I just decided that all my tax dollars go to me... rather than the places I would prefer not to think about...

Well, the COMPANY (not government) that picks up trash for me picks up on Thursday. Local Infrastructure and schools should be paid for with local taxes, not a bureaucratically pared down piece of a federal tax dollar only goven with strings attached. Having the largest bureaucracy and oversight in American History didn't prevent the peanut problem. Reasonable taxation is necessary. Redistribution of income is not only not necessary, it causes the have nots to never strive to "have" because it is already being handed to them.

 

[TLSnell1981]

The only thing on your list is that the federal government is even allowed to do under the constitution is war. The rest is left to the states. That was the whole point of our republic--to allow for the competition of ideas among the states. There's a big difference between the feds doing all of those things and the people of individual states choosing to do those things.

Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the Founders had created. His reply? "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Too many Americans don't know the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

 

[Charade]

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.

What?!?!?!?!?



S.T.I.M.U.L.U.S

 

[Charade]

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.

Now it hasn't. Do you know what foreign aid spending is compared to domestic spending?

 

[Free4Life11]

Where did $250K come into play?

The highest bracket is currently 35% of income over $357,700. Under Obamas proposal, this would revert to 39.6%? So an additional 4.6 cents in tax per dollar earned?

Suffice it to say I'm not going to be losing any sleep over that part, lol.

 

[Charade]

--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.

For me it is. If you owe no taxes, that's it. You don't get anything back.

It has nothing at all to do with their work ethic.

 

[Charade]

But remember, they shouldn't have had those kids in the first place if they can't afford them!

Honestly, that pretty much sums up my feelings.

Would you really expect others to help you pay for kids you couldn't afford? Especially if you purposely had more than you could afford?

 

[JennaTX]

The only thing on your list is that the federal government is even allowed to do under the constitution is war. The rest is left to the states. That was the whole point of our republic--to allow for the competition of ideas among the states. There's a big difference between the feds doing all of those things and the people of individual states choosing to do those things.

And where does the states get most of the money from?

No Child Left Behind which is what pays for many schools, run by the federal government.

Roads, paid for by the federal government.

Sure with much of that the state writes the check, but it is paid for by the federal government.

What local school do you know that would give up the money from No Child Left Behind? I don't know any (although I wish they would, but that is another topic)

 

[TLSnell1981]

Where did $250K come into play?

The highest bracket is currently 35% of income over $357,700. Under Obamas proposal, this would revert to 39.6%? So an additional 4.6 cents in tax per dollar earned?

Suffice it to say I'm not going to be losing any sleep over that part, lol.

You are correct. The top rate is currently 35%.
Obama said he's raising taxes on income $250k and up. They are going back to Clinton's rates.

Tax Year: 2000
Married filing jointly
If your taxable income is between... your tax bracket is:
0 and 43,850 15%
43,850 and 105,950 28%
105,950 and 161,450 31%
161,450 and 288,350 36%
288,350 and up 39.6%

 

[Free4Life11]

Thank you.

I *wish* they wouldn't release talking points. Why don't you give us a simple table showing what the new proposed brackets and corresponding rates would be??

I get sick of these little tidbits. Give us tangible numbers to debate! LOL

 

[TLSnell1981]

Thank you.

I *wish* they wouldn't release talking points. Why don't you give us a simple table showing what the new proposed brackets and corresponding rates would be??

I get sick of these little tidbits. Give us tangible numbers to debate! LOL

President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy...

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent.

This was posted -#65. It is a table showing the new proposed brackets and the increases. The math doesn't quite add up though.

Originally Posted by minnie61650
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

 

[minnie61650]

Here is an interesting article:

Are Democrats Or Republicans Better For The U.S. Economy?
Posted In: 2008 Election, Economy, Political Parties
Back on December 12, 2007, I wrote a post where I investigated the claim that Republican administrations are better for the U.S. economy than Democratic administrations. I referred to a study done in December 2006 by University of Nevado-Reno economics professor Elliott Parker, who compared the economic performance of Republican and Democratic presidencies from 1929 through the end of 2005 using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. Dr. Parker concluded:

But we can reasonably conclude that these government statistics provide evidence that directly contradicts the argument that the economy does better on average under Republican administrations. With lagged effects and other causes considered, the difference may be insignificant, but the economy may actually perform worse under Republicans.

Just recently, I came across a New York Times piece written by Princeton economics/public affairs professor Alan S. Blinder. A former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, Blinder wrote on August 31:

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut…



“Let the good times roll”

Blinder then proceeded to point out another shortcoming of Republican economic leadership. He wrote:

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

<SNIP>

Link to full article:

http://www.boom2bust.com/2008/09/10/are-democrats-or-republicans-better-for-the-us-economy/

 

[AndyLL]

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?

Is this a serious post?

Do most Repulicans believe Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11?

 

[AndyLL]

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.

This is why republicans have economically ruined our country.

You would really give up ~60,000K (which is more then 90% of the country earns) because you'd have to pay 2-3K more in taxes?

There are plenty of companies that will step into that void is so.

 

[AndyLL]

Actually this happened to us in2007. Both our girls were in school full time, so I decided to get a little job. We are very fortunate in that my dh makes a good living and I, as of right now, do not NEED to work. However, I had been home with kiddos all day for almost a decade, and I wanted to get out and work a little. I took a job where I could go in when I wanted to and there were no problems if I didn't go. All I had to do was work 1 or 2 shifts a year to keep my status. I earned almost $1,000. It was just enough to push us into the next tax bracket. We ended up paying several thousand additional dollars in taxes. Guess what? This past year I didn't work nearly as much, and I just stayed home with my family more.

My dh is an airline pilot, and he does this each month with his schedule. There are times when he could make a few more $$ but doing so would mean being away from home an additional 2 days. He chooses to make less money and have a better quality of life.

Anyway, all this is just to show that sometimes choosing to make less money can be a smart move.

Hmmm... I want to be polite.

You do understand that when you move into a higher tax bracket you only pay the additional % on the amount you make over the lower bracket?

So if that extra $1000 moved you from the 10% bracket to the 15% bracket you would have only paid an extra $50 in taxes?

You would have been only taxed the higher % on the $1000.

 

[minnie61650]

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.

When talking about working more hours to earn more the eqauation is different.

We chose the first. DH has owned the company for over 40 years and worked more hours (Not nearly 75 hours a week, maybe 45-50 hours a week in the early days There were some week ends and some middle of the night emergeny calls that DH had to take care of.) Now our grown sons are a part of the business and DH is semi- retired.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[MiniGirl]

Hmmm... I want to be polite.

You do understand that when you move into a higher tax bracket you only pay the additional % on the amount you make over the lower bracket?

So if that extra $1000 moved you from the 10% bracket to the 15% bracket you would have only paid an extra $50 in taxes?

You would have been only taxed the higher % on the $1000.

Yes, I do understand that. I was trying to avoid a long involved post when I first posted.

Now, we all know our tax code is not so simple as you make $X, you pay X%. There are tax credits, etc for various things as long as you make under a certain amount of money. My little fun job brought in just enough money that we were no longer eligible for one of those credits. So, while, technically, my income wasn't taxed at 100% because of a higher tax bracket. The net result was the same. Our tax bill went up by more than the amount of money I earned.

 

[Free4Life11]

This was posted -#65. It is a table showing the new proposed brackets and the increases. The math doesn't quite add up though.

I guess what confuses me is why $250K was ever mentioned by Obama. The tax brackets change every year for inflation and the cutoff isn't really near $250K. It just makes more sense to say "I want to roll back the top two brackets to their previous levels."

The current brackets for 2009 (for married filing jointly) are:
0 - 16,700 = 10%
16,700 - 67,900 = 15%
67,900 - 137,050 = 25%
137,050 - 208,850 = 28%
208,850 - 372,950 = 33%
372,950 and up = 35%

Since he says no one making less than $250K will have a tax increase, maybe his proposal is to change them as follows:
$0 - 16,700 = 10%
16,700 - 67,900 = 15%
67,900 - 137,050 = 25%
137,050 - 250,000 = 28%
250,000 - 372,950 = 36%
372,950 and up = 39.6%

Rolliing the marginal rates back to their previous levels is pretty straightforward. But for the $250,000 figure to matter, seems like Obama would have to propose new cutoffs to the brackets. I wish they would just explain this better!

Just release a propsed tax bracket, none of this "the average taxpayer in this bracket will save an average of" nonsense. Give us the numbers and let us decide.