Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When did the republicans protect the middle class? They are trying to get rid of the middle class!
Bush did a nice job of eliminating the marriage penalty and putting some money into the pockets of the middle class. My life is always better under a republican president. Democrats consider anyone who makes enough to pay taxes rich and consider us to owe the poor.
No surprise @ all.... OBAMA PROBABLY PAID THEM OFF TO NOT HAVE THE VOTE -- HE WANTS THINGS TO CRASH -- Its part of his grand plan!!!!!!!! (When are ppl going to wake up and realise this??)
Dude111, I want some of what you're smoking...
If Republicans can be paid to in-fight I would gladly buy a ticket...
Bush did a nice job of eliminating the marriage penalty and putting some money into the pockets of the middle class. My life is always better under a republican president. Democrats consider anyone who makes enough to pay taxes rich and consider us to owe the poor.
but putting more money in our pocket put us in more debt.
It started in 1985 and went to cell phones in 2005. In 2005 Bush was President in case you weren't aware.
And there's a reason for this. Next time you're out driving, count the number of phone booths you see. They used to be on every corner. I remember every gas station having one. Some were drive up height. When I was a teenager, there was one about every 4 blocks on the main road. I have no idea where to find a phone booth around where I live now. I think the grocery store (about two miles away) has phones in the front lobby but I'll have to check on that one.
Because phone booths are no longer common place, people need to be able to call for help. And the truth is, a basic phone for that purpose doesn't cost much. My MIL has one she pays for and she pays $10/month. Refurbished phones are cheap. It's the icrap and data that is insane....says the person who just signed up for one today (kids HAD TO HAVE them. They saved the money and are paying for the data. I'm hoping they see this as folly within a few months of mom putting her hand out on the 14th.).
And there's a reason for this. Next time you're out driving, count the number of phone booths you see. They used to be on every corner. I remember every gas station having one. Some were drive up height. I have no idea where to find a phone booth around where I live. I think the grocery store has phones in the front lobby but I'll have to check on that one.
Because phone booths are no longer common place, people need to be able to call for help. And the truth is, a basic phone for that purpose doesn't cost much. My MIL has one she pays for and she pays less than $20/month and she's not getting a group rate.
and that is why BUSH put the credit for cell or landlines so they are BUSH phones not Obama phones.
I don't remember the democrats saying every one who makes $250,000 or above should be taxed more except for..... When exactly did that happen?
Where have you been all this time?
The tax cuts "for the rich", that is anyone making $200k a year or a couple making $250k a year, that everybody has been talking about for 4 years is the issue at hand.
Out of 1 side of his mouth Obama and the dems say "the rich". which under the current law stats at $200k for a single person and 4250k for a couple.
According to Obama and the dems if you, a couple, makes $250k or more, you are rich.
but putting more money in our pocket put us in more debt.
You'll have to prove to me that the Bush tax cuts total 8 trillion. I don't believe it for one second.
Most likely, they had the result of making the recession less severe. They very well could have kept people working who would have lost their jobs otherwise because people had a little more to spend and businesses afloat that would have gone under, those people and businesses paid taxes. I know that the $4-$6K we've kept per year went right back into the economy. Without it, we would not have bought dh a car this year and we wouldn't have spent $2K on a vacation.
It isn't the tax cuts that resulted in the dept. It was too much spending during a bad economy. It's not the tax cuts that reduced revenues, it was the high percentage of unemployed people who were paying no taxes. It was the businesses that went under that paid no taxes. It was the high number of people drawing UI and food stamps. It the Bush tax cuts are a contributor at all, it's minor.
When they expire next year, the average middle class family will be paying $3K more in taxes (more if they are a dual earner couple as the marriage penalty comes back). That's $60 less per week they have to spend on goods and services. We're about to see what impact that will have on the economy. Because of the return of the marriage penalty, our taxes will go up more than average. My plan is to not buy a car this year and cancel our annual vacation. Now multiply me by just 100,000 (if 100,000 families do the same) and what is the impact on auto dealerships and hotel chains? Unfortunately, I'll still need to cut more so we'll cut the clothing budget (much to my teenaged daughters' chagrin).
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-26-2012 at 05:47 PM..
If that is what Obama wants, it is what I want too. Let the thing go over the cliff. Then come back Jan 2 and pass a new tax cut for all people under $250K a year and restore 40 to 50% of the military cuts and the Medicare cuts and DARE the House Republicans to vote against it.
If you think it's a good idea to cut military spending by 50%, especially with the way things are now, then you are completely off your rocker. I can't even take you seriously on that one. And why on earth would anyone want to cut Medicare spending when all we have to do is do away with the payroll tax cap on Medicare......if we did that, Medicare would be flush with cash....not to mention enacting a law that absolutely prevents our greedy congressmen from using that money for anything else. But no one ever wants to talk about that.....our politicians are loathe to prevent themselves from putting their hands in that cookie jar.
I would agree with the new tax rates for everyone making under $250k, but you're assuming that the tax rates would be lower than they are now......they won't be. They will be higher. Until investment/dividend/capital gains income is taxed at the same rates as wages so that there is a bigger tax base, tax rates will always be high for those who earn wages for a living....whether they be cooks, social workers, firemen, or accountants. The ONLY people who benefit from the tax loopholes allowing investment/dividend/capital gains are the liberals and the repubs who dutifully exploit the tax code so they can continue to pay at tax rates of 10-15%. Seeing as how this group is a major obama donor (and the repubs donors as well), do you really honestly think obama is going to make these rich people pay higher taxes????? NOT GONNA HAPPEN. obama may raise the tax rates on these people, but then he will quietly pass some tax law that will allow these people to avoid paying these tax rates....then he will go on tv, spew a bunch of rhetoric on how the rich aren't paying their fair share, claim the country isn't bringing in enough in taxes to justify raising taxes on the middle class (this is a game ALL the politicians play), the middle class get stuck with yet another raise in their tax rates....and this gets played out over and over and over again. The obama idiots just can't seem to understand the game the politicians play, no matter what side of the isle they are on.....and the people who ALWAYS lose are the middle class. But, by all means, continue to go down your blind alleys and chase boogeymen....
Do you understand what investment income is? It's not treated like earned income because it's not earned.
Here's a case. Let's say someone was worth 4 million in 2006, was worth 2.5 million at the bottom of the market but has "gained" a quarter of a million in the last year. How much income do they really have over the last 6 years? Earned income is taxed at a different rate because sometimes what they're taxing is just gaining back what you lost before. You're only allowed to roll losses so far forward. Money lost in 2008 is gone. Many people have not yet gained back what they lost but they are paying capital gains taxes on what they "gained" this year.
To make things fair, losses should never expire. Someone should not be paying taxes on "gains" when all they are doing is recovering a loss.
I'm well aware of what investment income is..... What doesn't make sense....and should not be allowed....is for people to use the investment income as a way to dodge paying taxes because either way, that money is being used to make more money that you will use to live off of. Otherwise, why do it right? I have nothing against people making money, but make the tax rates the same. Clearly you do not agree with that. Fine. But it's totally insulting for someone making $3M/year, with $2M of that $3M being earned as investment income, and not pay the same amount of taxes on it. All that is is some rich person looking for a way to avoid paying taxes on their money. Might as well stick in an off shore account.......same thing, different mental sleight of hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
