Kerry for the middle class?

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by BuckNaked
Thanks snarfer1, I pointed the same thing out to septbride2002 earlier. 42% more income, 67% more taxes.

Sorry, I though I read all the replies. I missed her response too. Usually her posts stand out, clearly defined by her vitriol.

-Tony

 

[septbride2002]

I love how you insinuate that I am a liar when I am the one looking at tax returns - how many have you looked at in the past 3 years?

In NJ, you can not get or maintain a Physician license if you owe student loans (in arrears) or child support. (Because so many Doctors were defaulting on their student loans!

You just made my point - Dr's were defaulting on their student loans so they had to do something. Good for the state of NJ.

No Doctor could fund their retirement on claimed (w2) amounts of $25,000.00, they usually claim W-2 of $160,000.00 to maximize their 401K, and profit sharing plans. (Roughly $40K limits or 25% maximum coimbined, unless you get really creative)

Not many Dr's and Lawyers (in private practice) have 401K plans - they have IRA's. And yes we can count their IRA's as income when applying for a loan which is typically why they get the laon and has nothing to do with their claimed income.

I'm not a liar - but if you want to put me on your ignore list please feel free. Meanwhile I'm not big on name calling so I won't really miss your insulting post.

~Amanda

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by septbride2002
I look at returns all day long - and self-employed, lawyers, and Doctors typically claim between $25,000 to $50,000 a year in income and the rest of it is all filtered through (completely legal) business deductions. So spare me the high and mighty act.

~Amanda

Can a Doctor deduct part or all of their astronomical malpractice insurance rates? After taxes, overhead and insurance, they are probably not pulling in more than 25 or 50 thousand, which seems unfair considering the years of school and trainig they endure.

 

[septbride2002]

Again, rather than give them back other people's money, why not just REDUCE THEIR TAXES UP FRONT???? If a family is earning 50K and paying their taxes and their tax obligation is more than $4K, why not just reduce their taxes up front by $4K. Either way you are impacting the amount of revenue the govt takes in. If they are giving you back more money than you paid in, then it's got be coming from somewhere else. I'm not belittling people, I'm belittling the concept of people thinking they need to get back more than they paid in. It becomes someone elses money at that point, and that's wealth redistribution. You are making assumption that because I'm against that concept I've never been in that situation. How logical is that? I found plenty of ways to afford college without govt assistance and my family could barely make ends meet. Not that I need to explain myself to you, but since you made the unfounded assumption, I thought I'd correct you. There are plenty of sources of money out there for people to go to college without getting the Federal Govt involved.

I didn't mean to come off as that I'm assuming you are or were in this type of position. I was just trying to make the point that not everyone is as fortunate as others. I'm sorry for my assumption.

Thank you for the complete answer. I do see your point and I agree with you - people should not get paid back more then they pay in. For people in lower income brackets I can see how this tax credit would not work. But for someone paying in $11,000 in taxes a $4000 tax credit would not fit into your example.

Thanks snarfer1, I pointed the same thing out to septbride2002 earlier. 42% more income, 67% more taxes.

Yes you did - and I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier as I went to bed not long after you posted that. Your numbers make more sense then mine and I appreicate the clarification.

Sorry, I though I read all the replies. I missed her response too. Usually her posts stand out, clearly defined by her vitriol.

Nice. Real nice. I don't see how you can say my post stand out since this is the first political thread I've gotten involved in for a long time.

~amanda

 

[septbride2002]

Can a Doctor deduct part or all of their astronomical malpractice insurance rates? After taxes, overhead and insurance, they are probably not pulling in more than 25 or 50 thousand, which seems unfair considering the years of school and trainig they endure.

Yes they can. And that is for another discussion but obviously something else needs to be done about the cost of malpractice insurance in this country.

But I've also seen credits like - Cars. Typically their cars are paid for through their business which becomes a deductin. Then so does the Gas in the car, then they deduct the mileage, the depreciation value and so on. This is just one example. I cannot tell you how many times I've had to say, "Dr. Smith, I understand that you really make $300,000 per year but since you only claimed $50,000 on your taxes I cannot consider the extra $250K as income. It is a double edge sword you saved on taxes but then we only have your tax returns to consider."

But I'm a liar tonyswife so I guess take it all with a grain of salt

~Amanda

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Can a Doctor deduct part or all of their astronomical malpractice insurance rates? After taxes, overhead and insurance, they are probably not pulling in more than 25 or 50 thousand, which seems unfair considering the years of school and trainig they endure.

Yes malpractice is a business expense. It is deductible, but if you are a Doctor who is making the same or slightly less this year, but your malpractice went up by $40,000.00, then your income also goes down by the $40,000.00 more you spent. (There are some adjustments, but the bottom line still goes way down.

Most Doctors are in group practices, and they usually offer a 401K, since an IRA is not going to fund a sucessful retirement for a 'high earner'. Anecdotally, most Doctors that I know use 401Ks with a matching option to retire, and many add (shudder) variable annuities.

Any financial planners, CPAs out there who can state if most of their Physician/Attorney clients have a W2 income of $25,000.00 ? (Yes for them an IRA would make sense)

Thanks,

-Tony

Also let me publically apologize to Septemberbride for calling her a liar. I have edited my original post. But being married to a Physician, and moving in Attorney circles, what she describes matches none of the 100's of professionals I know, and once again, I burned red hot before thinking. I dispute her claims, but that does not make her a liar, it makes me rude, and for that I'm sorry.

-Tony

 

[dmadman43]

For people in lower income brackets I can see how this tax credit would not work. But for someone paying in $11,000 in taxes a $4000 tax credit would not fit into your example.

Again, why not just make their upfront tax burden $7,000?

 

[septbride2002]

Tony apology accepted and don't sweat it - I get a little hot under the collar around here sometimes myself

I can state that I do not work a lot with clients in the New Jersey area - so I cannot say if they do or do not do the things I am claiming. I can assure you that the remarks and things I have seen on tax returns are true and made my head sping. I have seen some of the most creative accounting ever!

Again, why not just make their upfront tax burden $7,000?

Okay I see you point - you win. But that doesn't mean that I still don't think the other idea has some valid points.

If the tax burdn was already lowered to $11,000 how are you going to lower it to another $7000?

~Amanda

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Yes they can. And that is for another discussion but obviously something else needs to be done about the cost of malpractice insurance in this country.

Absolutely. Electing Edwards is not the way to do it. At the VP debate, he alluded to some kind of self-policing scheme to deal with frivolous lawsuits. My husband and I have been calling it "tribal council" ever since. Saying things like, "The tribe has SPOKEN!"

But I've also seen credits like - Cars. Typically their cars are paid for through their business which becomes a deductin. Then so does the Gas in the car, then they deduct the mileage, the depreciation value and so on. This is just one example. I cannot tell you how many times I've had to say, "Dr. Smith, I understand that you really make $300,000 per year but since you only claimed $50,000 on your taxes I cannot consider the extra $250K as income. It is a double edge sword you saved on taxes but then we only have your tax returns to consider."

All of which is why I favor a flat tax.

But I'm a liar tonyswife so I guess take it all with a grain of salt

~Amanda

That Tony is not the Tony I am referring to in my screen name. But I see he publically apologized so I still like him.

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Tony apology accepted and don't sweat it - I get a little hot under the collar around here sometimes myself

Thank you!

-A Tony, but not the 'Tony' of tonyswife!

I

 

[Disney Enthusiast]

Originally posted by snarfer1
Thank you!

-A Tony, but not the 'Tony' of tonyswife!

I

I'm glad you two are playing nice again! I didn't want to have to give you time outs!

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Tony apology accepted and don't sweat it - I get a little hot under the collar around here sometimes myself

I can state that I do not work a lot with clients in the New Jersey area - so I cannot say if they do or do not do the things I am claiming. I can assure you that the remarks and things I have seen on tax returns are true and made my head sping. I have seen some of the most creative accounting ever!



Okay I see you point - you win. But that doesn't mean that I still don't think the other idea has some valid points.

If the tax burdn was already lowered to $11,000 how are you going to lower it to another $7000?

~Amanda

By cutting taxes AND reducing spending. Anything else will require raising taxes (without spending cuts) to fund everyone that qualifies for the "credit"

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by septbride2002



Yes you did - and I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier as I went to bed not long after you posted that. Your numbers make more sense then mine and I appreicate the clarification.

~amanda

No problem - sorry I didn't respond to this post earlier, I was tied up.


NO, not THAT kind of tied up.

 

[septbride2002]

By cutting taxes AND reducing spending. Anything else will require raising taxes (without spending cuts) to fund everyone that qualifies for the "credit"

Okay so you will cut tax credits - what other types of spending will you lower because I don't see how just funding tax credits would be able to lower taxes anymore.

Also please explain how you will recover the 5 trillion dollar deficit we now have thanks to GWB spending.

~Amanda

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Okay so you will cut tax credits - what other types of spending will you lower because I don't see how just funding tax credits would be able to lower taxes anymore.

Also please explain how you will recover the 5 trillion dollar deficit we now have thanks to GWB spending.

~Amanda

First off, we don't have a 5 trillion dollar deficit.

That aside, I have no interest in lowering taxes any more at this point. My preference is to leave taxes where they are cut federal spending to the bone.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Okay so you will cut tax credits - what other types of spending will you lower because I don't see how just funding tax credits would be able to lower taxes anymore.

Also please explain how you will recover the 5 trillion dollar deficit we now have thanks to GWB spending.

~Amanda

Tax credits are simply a transfer of wealth as somebody ultimately pays for a tax credit. Eliminating tax credits will actually generate more revenue for the govt, as will cutting taxes, oth Kennedy and Reagan proved that.

 

[dash]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Also please explain how you will recover the 5 trillion dollar deficit we now have thanks to GWB spending.

~Amanda

This is slightly tangential, but I've read reports that both Kerry's and Bush's plans will increase the deficit by about the same amount! IMHO, it won't be reduced anytime soon!

 

[denisenh]

‘State of Working America’ looks bleak
Archive Recent Editions 2004 Editions Oct 23, 2004
Author: David Eisenhower, People Before Profits
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 10/21/04 13:48


The Economic Policy Institute’s report on “The State of Working America 2004/2005” paints a bleak picture of weak labor markets, a drop in real wages and a decline in job quality.

Bush’s plan to boost job creation is to give millionaires a tax cut averaging $123,000. And this is on top of his earlier tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent. This will run up government debt by an unsustainable $5 trillion over the next 10 years, according to economists Peter Orszag, Robert Rubin and Allen Sinai.

Bush’s tax policies accelerate a larger trend, which has doubled the share of national wealth owned by the richest 1 percent, while promoting income inequality, report Edward Wolff and Jared Bernstein. The result, they write, is to “leave the country more class-bound, less democratic, more riven by wealth and income gaps that mean people’s life opportunities are unequal.”

Wolff and Bernstein cite other factors promoting deeper inequality: falling levels of unionization, corporate globalization, a declining minimum wage, lower taxes on corporations, a sharp increase in military spending and a leap in compensation for the top executives.

To survive, families have taken on more debt, with the ratio of household debt to disposable income reaching 108.3 percent.

Low interest rates have fueled a housing bubble, sharply increasing home equity. In the process $4 trillion was “created” in what Dean Baker at the Center of Economic and Policy Research calls “bubble wealth.” This nest egg was tapped to sustain levels of consumption, buying some economic time. But as Baker points out, “There is no doubt that the housing bubble will burst.”

Team Bush is determined to make “working America” absorb all the costs. As the study by the Economic Policy Institute reports, the resultant policies mean a sharp increase in the number of working poor, a reduction in unemployment benefits, a minimum wage kept below the poverty line, a continuing shift of manufacturing jobs overseas, union busting, more part-time work, less overtime pay, fewer benefits, elimination of company pension plans, the disproportionate concentration of Black and Hispanic workers in poverty level jobs, maintenance of the gender gap, and acceleration of the concentration of wealth.

It is the condition of working America that is inspiring demands for universal health care; a national living wage; protection and enhancement of Social Security to make it immune from privatization; employer provided pensions; an end to NAFTA, MAI and FTAA; the guaranteed right to organize and the repeal of all anti-labor legislation; fully funded public education; an end to the criminalization of poverty; progressive taxation; urban reconstruction; and much more.

The author can be reached at economics@cpusa.org.

 

[BuckNaked]

You do realize you are quoting from a Communist web site, right?

 

[denisenh]

I had to laugh when I read your post. No, I honestly didn't know as I had never heard of that paper before.
But I started reading more. I always thought that "Communism" and "communist" were such horrible things. It is obviously associated with that which isn't good.
But reading from the web site, it doesn't seem to be horrible.
I will have to figure it out.