|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Do you remember last spring when the King decided to change the tax withholding tables to give you more money in your pocket for each paycheck? As part of his "tax credit to 95% of Americans"?
This was his ploy to get more money into the economy immediately to try and make his stimulus plan appear to be successful....now pay attention.
Do you remember me telling you that this was going to be a problem because people who were used to getting a refund would not get one or would actually owe $$$ at tax time instead?
Do you remember me telling you that this was a stupid move by the King because the ding-dongs who voted for him will quickly forget about the extra $$$ in each paycheck throughout the year...and then forget about their love-fest for him when the tax returns are prepared and THEY OWE MONEY this year?
All because the King does not think through his soundbites?
Are you still paying attention?
Well...
I just finished a tax return where the husband and wife file separately...same as last year.
Both made about 10% more than last year...but due to the King's edict, both had LESS TAXES WITHHELD from their paychecks during the year this year than last year...even though they both made MORE MONEY.
Both owe taxes today for last year - one significantly so in comparison to owing this year (-$900) vs a refund last year (+$1,500)... btw BOTH got refunds last year.
So why is this important you say?
Well....
The King sold tomorrow for today (again) by putting more $$$ into people's pockets today (actually yesterday) in hopes of making himself look good throughout the year...but...then...along comes tax time when the piper must be paid.
So what did he accomplish?
He put "more money " into the economy during '09 at the expense of $$$ flowing into the economy in early '10 - via smaller refunds in spring '10 / owing $$$ rather than getting a refund.
See "Cash for Clunker" insanity for how his policies screw tomorrow for short-term, soundbite-benefit today.
What does THAT mean?
Well...think about it.
He accelerated $$$ into the economy in '09 by changing the withholding tables to give you more of YOUR OWN money throughout the year in hopes/expectation that you will spend it then...rather than in the spring of '10 after tax time...so HE looks good with his stimulus in '09...because consumer "spending" is up.
Similar to the Cash for Clunkers program which only spent your/my hard earned tax dollars on getting people to by then (today) what they were going to buy anyway (but tomorrow).
So...if you think the crisis we are in today sucks...wait until the "lull" in auto purchases catches up to the bogus "blip" created by the Clunkers program last year...and...
If you think the crisis we are in today sucks...wait until the "lull" in $$$ usually spent by people in the spring - as a result of big tax refunds - does not happen because the $$$ has already been spent LAST YEAR.
Only now they not only won't be spending $$$ in early '10...they will be taking their $$$ and paying taxes instead.
This guy is one serious piece of work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
I think the blame lies with the couple's tax advisor for not advising them to spend 10 minutes to fill out a W-4 if they wanted Uncle Sam to continue to hold onto their money. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,368
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,368 |
Yes it's the same amount of money either way but I think he's pointing more to the fact that O tried to pass this off as a tax credit when really it's no credit at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 93
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 93 |
I might be the minority here but, I made more $ this year and also got more $ money back. So did my girlfriend. Combined we got $3000 more.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,368
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,368 |
I didn't, I'm single with no kids so I have to help support the jobless with kids but that's beside the point.
But I would've only got back 50 dollars if it wasn't for the "making work pay tax credit" which gave me a whopping 400 dollars extra! Which was generated by the stimulus package and I wont be seeing it next year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
I might be the minority here but, I made more $ this year and also got more $ money back. So did my girlfriend. Combined we got $3000 more.
I got more back this year, even with spending my 401k distributition.. but then again i got married and had a new kid last year..
...
but (j/c), this King Obama stuff is getting old and makes everything you say less likely to be heard and taken seriously.
Last edited by ~TuX~; 02/04/10 11:27 PM.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
I think the blame lies with the couple's tax advisor for not advising them to spend 10 minutes to fill out a W-4 if they wanted Uncle Sam to continue to hold onto their money.
You really should stay away from any discussion regarding taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think the blame lies with the couple's tax advisor for not advising them to spend 10 minutes to fill out a W-4 if they wanted Uncle Sam to continue to hold onto their money.
You really should stay away from any discussion regarding taxes.
well one thing that I see.. and I am not a tax pro... is that in your story.. You say they made more.. but paid less over the year in taxes.. .. and you are trying to say that they are paying more taxes just because they owe money rather than getting a refund.. Owing in April or getting a Refund does not measure how much they are being taxed.. They could very well be paying less in tax than last year and still owe money in April as opposed to getting the refund they saw last year.
The true measure would be their tax percentage that they actually paid last year compared to what they paid this year. But of course, it's easier to see that they owe or get a refund back rather than pointing out if their tax rate increased or decreased.
So did their tax percentage go up or down compared to last year?
and of course, it is better to owe a little in April than to get a big refund in April.. Getting a big refund in April only means that you are giving Uncle Sam a free loan at 0%.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
I might be the minority here but, I made more $ this year and also got more $ money back. So did my girlfriend. Combined we got $3000 more.
Minority? The new kid was worth at least $1,000...are you now filing as "married"? Or are you or your girlfriend filing as head of household if you are not married?
If you are now married, any tax break you are getting as a married couple is quite possibly due to Bush's insistance on eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Quote:
I got more back this year, even with spending my 401k distributition.. but then again i got married and had a new kid last year.
How much tax was withheld upfront from your 401k distrbution? 10%...20%? Are you now married? If not, who is claiming the new kid?
Quote:
but (j/c), this King Obama stuff is getting old and makes everything you say less likely to be heard and taken seriously.
j/c If people don't see him and his decision making philosophy...his blatant, bold faced lies...his audacity to claim something that he is clearly doing as being soooo bad but done by others...and his czars...as being an attempt to be a King - rather than a President of a former democracy - than so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
I might be the minority here but, I made more $ this year and also got more $ money back. So did my girlfriend. Combined we got $3000 more.
Minority? The new kid was worth at least $1,000...are you now filing as "married"? Or are you or your girlfriend filing as head of household if you are not married?
that was a different poster.. i'm married and stated so in my post.
Quote:
If you are now married, any tax break you are getting as a married couple is quite possibly due to Bush's insistance on eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Quote:
I got more back this year, even with spending my 401k distributition.. but then again i got married and had a new kid last year.
How much tax was withheld upfront from your 401k distrbution? 10%...20%? Are you now married? If not, who is claiming the new kid?
well they took a big chunk out of my cutted check.. i'd say it was 20% but i expected that hit.. I could have rolled it over to a IRA but I needed the money at the time.
Quote:
Quote:
but (j/c), this King Obama stuff is getting old and makes everything you say less likely to be heard and taken seriously.
j/c If people don't see him and his decision making philosophy...his blatant, bold faced lies...his audacity to claim something that he is clearly doing as being soooo bad but done by others...and his czars...as being an attempt to be a King - rather than a President of a former democracy - than so be it.
So he is acting like a King.. just as Bush was... there is no difference expect for what party you like better... and I would say Obama was right for calling out the Republicans for only voting "No"(your other thread) because Obama is a Democrat... but then again the Democrats would do the same thing to Bush.. Political parties are the thorns in the side of our democracy or at least the limited choice of 2 viable ones that we have.
and btw the couple in this thread.. did they have a higher or lower tax percentage this year or last year as explained in my post above the one you replied to..
Last edited by ~TuX~; 02/04/10 11:58 PM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
well one thing that I see.. and I am not a tax pro... is that in your story.. You say they made more.. but paid less over the year in taxes.. .. and you are trying to say that they are paying more taxes just because they owe money rather than getting a refund.
That is not what I am saying.
Quote:
Owing in April or getting a Refund does not measure how much they are being taxed
Correct
Quote:
They could very well be paying less in tax than last year and still owe money in April as opposed to getting the refund they saw last year.
They are absolutely NOT paying LESS in taxes than last year...by % or $$$...the rest of that statement is correct...and part of my point.
Quote:
The true measure would be their tax percentage that they actually paid last year compared to what they paid this year. But of course, it's easier to see that they owe or get a refund back rather than pointing out if their tax rate increased or decreased.
Their total tax rate paid increased because they made more money. The difference in refund vs amount-due is exaggerated by the King's attempt to artificially make the economy seem better throughout '09 - in line with his awful stimulus package - in hopes that the sheep will be tricked into thinking the disastrous stimulous actually worked by getting $$$ into the economy LAST YEAR that otherwise would have been spent NOW - aka this year.
Quote:
So did their tax percentage go up or down compared to last year?
Same marginal rate...higher effective rate. Not sure where you are going with that.
Quote:
and of course, it is better to owe a little in April than to get a big refund in April.. Getting a big refund in April only means that you are giving Uncle Sam a free loan at 0%.
Amen...yet most Americans would think differently because they don't understand how it all really works...to your credit, you appear to not be like most of America in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
So did their tax percentage go up or down compared to last year?
Same marginal rate...higher effective rate. Not sure where you are going with that.
So is a higher percentage of their wages going to taxes this year than last year, if they were in the same tax bracket as last year?
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 380
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 380 |
i did pretty good this year. did better w itemizing than standard deductions. usually it was real close, this year it better itemizing.
i bought a woodburning insert and got a third of it back including the installation. that offset the price of it alot.
energy efficiency and going green lol. too bad i've been green by burning wood.
that third back is a pretty good program imo. windows, furnaces, water heaters etc that qualify as energy efficient in their eyes. it was supposed to offset my ridiculous electric heating bill. but since electricity prices have gone up it hasnt been that big of savings. but i am warmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
So he is acting like a King.. just as Bush was... there is no difference expect for what party you like better... and I would say Obama was right for calling out the Republicans for only voting "No"(your other thread) because Obama is a Democrat... but then again the Democrats would do the same thing to Bush.. Political parties are the thorns in the side of our democracy or at least the limited choice of 2 viable ones that we have.
Well...over 60% of Americans did not want what the King was after...yet you want to say that was an act of partisanship by the Rs?
Maybe...just maybe...the Rs were doing what they thought the people wanted?
Given that so many people were against the wishes of the King, perhaps the King is the one who should be called out?
Quote:
and btw the couple in this thread.. did they have a higher or lower tax percentage this year or last year as explained in my post above the one you replied to..
Answered above.
Stay tuned for more updates as I will do about 500+ more individual returns between now and November.
Unfortunately, I expect more of the same in all-too-many instances.
(Note: My apologies for mistaking your marital status as you responded with "quotes" to my post to someone else.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
So is a higher percentage of their wages going to taxes this year than last year, if they were in the same tax bracket as last year?
Yes...a higher percentage (effectively) went to taxes. They are in the same marginal tax bracket as last year. Total tax increase? Approximately $1000.
However...here is the point:
All things being equal and not being manipulated by the King, they would/should have paid in MORE in taxes during '09 than during '08. You know...made more...withhold more.
Yet they made more...correspondingly owe more in taxes...and yet a lot LESS was withheld.
The point is...the King was trying to artificially inflate the economy by taking '10's refund dollars and having people spend those dollars in '09...thereby making his stimulous appear effective.
All done with no thought that it is the same dollars being passed from one year to the next...yet so he could claim (soundbite) that he "saved or created jobs/the economy" as a result of the failed stimulous package.
Once again, his lack of thinking-it-through will cause his "idea" to backfire as the only thing people will remember is that they now "owe" rather than get a refund.
The sheep will forget that the net dollars are almost the same...what is different is when/how they got those dollars and how they got to spend them.
Last edited by WSU Willie; 02/05/10 12:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
He accelerated $$$ into the economy in '09 by changing the withholding tables to give you more of YOUR OWN money throughout the year in hopes/expectation that you will spend it then...rather than in the spring of '10 after tax time...so HE looks good with his stimulus in '09...because consumer "spending" is up.
I hear this all the time on this board, but taxes are not the government stealing YOUR OWN money. Taxes in this country are the cost of the privilege of living here. They provide you with an army that protects you; a Medicare plan that protects you when you are 65 and no private insurance company will touch you; and Social Security if your retirement plan got flushed in the last few years. They also provide you with roads, rail, and other infrastructure. The government also regulates and enforces the transparency that allows business markets to work fairly. None of these things are very profitable, so they must be taken up by the government.
Does the government do all these things perfectly? No. Could it be more efficient? Probably. But this is still the best country in the world with the best form of government.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
The government also regulates and enforces the transparency that allows business markets to work fairly.
That's their only job: to monitor, and preserve individual liberty in the transactions of goods and services. There's nothing government can do that citizens themselves already can't. Instead of constantly over-taxing us, they should allow us, charitably, to establish things such as a military with our money, not hold us ransom, and threaten prison if we don't give them the entire cash register. Church's, and other charities, which are privately owned, operate quite well at providing for those who can't do it themselves. People donate, and people want to help others'.
I also disagree that there's no profit in infrastructure. Supply and demand is self-correcting, this is what leads to innovation and efficiency. Example: People need roads, people use roads, people will pay tolls to use roads, and they do. Downtown New York City, and its highways, between 3-5 PM is a Gold-mine.
Either way, whether we give our money to the government through taxes, or give our money to others' for their goods, or services, is irrelevant. Money is going to be exchanged to satisfy our interests. At least with the latter, we aren't coerced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
You made some good points in your post and shared some good information, at least in the first few anyway. I quit reading after that though, because of your obvious bias/affiliation/agenda or whatever you wanna label it. You said: Quote:
If people don't see him and his decision making philosophy...his blatant, bold faced lies...
Which is basically a quick summary of every president we've had in the roughly 30 years I've been alive. Yet for this one specifically you can't let your anger/hate/whatever that you feel for him go long enough to even talk about a legitimate issue without making it into a battle of rhetoric. I'm not the first one to disregard what you say in this thread, and I assume that by making the thread in the first place you wanted us to listen to what you had to say. All this King this, his edict that, is just making you look like one of those fringe residing, angry, nonsensical people we keep seeing on tv, and it really distorts the message you are trying to convey. Maybe it just gets to me more than it should, but I don't like the fact that the word conservative has turned into a dirty word, and stuff like this is one of the reasons why.
Tiffindawg said:
Quote:
I might be the minority here but, I made more $ this year and also got more $ money back. So did my girlfriend. Combined we got $3000 more.
I am also in this same situation. I didn't make much more, just a few thousand, but I got about $700 back this year. I am single but I have always claimed 2 so that way I was getting as much of my money that was rightfully mine every week that I wouldn't owe in taxes and not giving the government an interest free loan for a year. Last year I owed Ohio about $30 and the federal government owed me about $100. This year I was expecting roughly the same and I owed Ohio $33 like usual, but my federal return was $600 more than it usually was. I assume that $400 of that was from that credit about putting families to work or whatever, but that other $200 I got back extra was something I can't really account for. Something changed on the other end, but I can't really say what it was, only that it worked in my favor.
As far as the cash for clunkers program, I agree with you 100% on it being a bad idea. Its my job to test the plastics that my company manufactures and about 70% of our business is in injection molded parts for car interiors. We had a decent year this year after having a bad one last year, and a lot of that was due to the cash for clunkers program, but it all but assures a bad year for us next year and probably the year after that. People are probably not going to be buying new cars in the next couple years because they just purchased one this year. This is going to effect our bottom line and its almost a given that some people are going to lose their jobs. The same thing happened to us in 2001 I think it was, when all those car companies started doing 0% financing to try and boost sales. Tons of people bought cars that year, and the 2 years following there were tons of layoffs. When we have a good year, the regular blue collar joe's like me might get some overtime here and there but we don't get bonus checks, profit sharing, etc. when the company makes a ton of money. Hell, we don't usually even get a pat on the back. Now when we have slow year...we get unemployment checks. This program gave us a short term fix, but it just screwed a lot of people at my company in the next few years, and many other companies too.
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
As far as the cash for clunkers program, I agree with you 100% on it being a bad idea. Its my job to test the plastics that my company manufactures and about 70% of our business is in injection molded parts for car interiors. We had a decent year this year after having a bad one last year, and a lot of that was due to the cash for clunkers program, but it all but assures a bad year for us next year and probably the year after that. People are probably not going to be buying new cars in the next couple years because they just purchased one this year. This is going to effect our bottom line and its almost a given that some people are going to lose their jobs. The same thing happened to us in 2001 I think it was, when all those car companies started doing 0% financing to try and boost sales. Tons of people bought cars that year, and the 2 years following there were tons of layoffs. When we have a good year, the regular blue collar joe's like me might get some overtime here and there but we don't get bonus checks, profit sharing, etc. when the company makes a ton of money. Hell, we don't usually even get a pat on the back. Now when we have slow year...we get unemployment checks. This program gave us a short term fix, but it just screwed a lot of people at my company in the next few years, and many other companies too.
I didn't think that was it was a good program either but for a very different reason... It takes a lot of reasonably good vehicles that are otherwise perfectly running that a family with low income can afford off the market. Less used cars for sale, higher prices can follow. While it might help the auto companies this year, it hurts people down the line now. Nor did I agree with the mpg requirement... I'm surprised so many people were able to take advantage of that to begin with.. 18 mpg would mostly be v6's or v8 vehicles... I got around 30mpg in my 81 honda civic when I was driving that.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Your bias is showing when you refer to our President as the king.. but that aside, I got more money back this year than the year before..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
Your bias is showing when you refer to our President as the king.. but that aside, I got more money back this year than the year before..
I'm no tax professional but probably the reason for that is that the tax brackets were adjusted upward so more of your income is taxed at lower rate and also the standard deduction is higher this year. I don't how these changes came about - I only suspect they were automatic changes kicked in by inflation. Tax Guy, how about a little help here?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
I'm no tax professional but probably the reason for that is that the tax brackets were adjusted upward so more of your income is taxed at lower rate and also the standard deduction is higher this year.
that's why I hire a tax guy.. to advise me AHEAD of time.. lol
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
I'm no tax professional but probably the reason for that is that the tax brackets were adjusted upward so more of your income is taxed at lower rate and also the standard deduction is higher this year. I don't how these changes came about - I only suspect they were automatic changes kicked in by inflation. Tax Guy, how about a little help here?
You are correct regarding the tax brackets and the standard deduction...also add in the change in the personal exemption and all those things help.
There are many things that can contribute to a change in total taxes due as well as the amount of one's refund.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520 |
I also made more and got more on my tax return...
"I'm a mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
that's why I hire a tax guy.. to advise me AHEAD of time.. lol
So...when the King starts doinking around with anything "tax" related, the first thing you do is call your tax guy?
Really...  You are just trying to protect what you can...right?
You think you are alone in that? What do you think "the rich" do when a King wants to take even more of their money?
In my example, both spouses work...no kids...not enough deductions to itemize...classic middle America...and they now should see me during the year just because the King changed the withholding tables?
Yeah...that's taking care of the American middle class.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
I did not say that King O raised taxes...I did not say King O did not effectively create a "tax cut"... It appears that you completely missed my point...thanks for the link though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
Your bias is showing when you refer to our President as the king.. but that aside, I got more money back this year than the year before..
I am NOT biased. I am standing right here telling you I cannot stand the man's policies...I am not hiding a thing nor am I trying to pretend to beleive something I do not.
That does not change the fact that what he did was a political manuever to create a false sense that his first disastrous policy actually worked...which it did not.
I'm disappointed that your retort was that you "got more money back than last year". I know you are smarter than simply concluding that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
That's their only job: to monitor, and preserve individual liberty in the transactions of goods and services. There's nothing government can do that citizens themselves already can't. Instead of constantly over-taxing us, they should allow us, charitably, to establish things such as a military with our money, not hold us ransom, and threaten prison if we don't give them the entire cash register. Church's, and other charities, which are privately owned, operate quite well at providing for those who can't do it themselves. People donate, and people want to help others'.
First off, we don't give the government the entire cash register. That is overstating it a bit.
Medicare arose because no private insurance company can profitably insure elderly patients at premiums that anyone can afford. As for churchs and charities, yes they do a great service. But in times of economic hardship, their main source of money, charitable donations, decreases greatly while the number of those in need increases. And I don't think charities make nearly enough money to cover the health care costs of the old. China doesn't make enough money to cover the health care costs of the old. Putting this another way; if people are struggling to provide for their immediate families, how will they provide for elderly members of their family? IMO, abolishing these programs in favor of charities will return us to older people dying of treatable illnesses, as well as living way below the poverty line when their pensions run out or dry up in the stock market.
This would go as well for a military created by charitable donations. It would be subject to the whims of business cycles, thus every time we had a recession, the military would be weakened, as well as making those in need even more vulnerable than they already are. And sometimes during a recession, we really need the military at strength and can't afford to have it weak then. Further, having the military created under the banner of a corporation or non-profit would mean that it would have to cover it's costs and/or possibly try to turn a profit. You have to admit that a military organization trying to cover costs/turn a profit is only going to lead to one thing: much increased use for less and less valid reasons.
As far as infrastructure, I agree that it can be profitable. Here I don't know the answer whether it is cheaper to pay the small portion of taxes that end up paying for the roads, or to pay tolls.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
I am NOT biased. I am standing right here telling you I cannot stand the man's policies...I am not hiding a thing nor am I trying to pretend to beleive something I do not.
Just because you come out and say you cannot stand Obama's policies, does not mean you cannot be biased in any fashion... Just as the people are biased at Fox News or CNN, even though you may know their leanings.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
I also made more and got more on my tax return...
Funny how it works, I made a lot less and am getting a lot more back. It's all in how you have it withheld,...no big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Willie,, you are just ticked off that only a handful of folks feel as you do.
you don't like Obama policies,, I get that.. is that reason to disrespect him and the office he holds by constantly referring to him as King or King Obama..
Funny thing is, he isn't any different than Bush or Clinton was in that regard.. So yeah, you are bias against him,, you just don't want to admit it.. But that's ok,,
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
China doesn't make enough money to cover the health care costs of the old. Putting this another way; if people are struggling to provide for their immediate families, how will they provide for elderly members of their family?
Well, that's actually an argument against yourself: China is a communist country, and the governing body provides for its people, and if they can't cover healthcare costs of the old, what makes you think we could, using a similar system?
Quote:
You have to admit that a military organization trying to cover costs/turn a profit is only going to lead to one thing: much increased use for less and less valid reasons.
I do admit this, but regardless of whether it's being funded publicly, or privately, the military is being over-used as we speak, funded publicly. Soldiers are all across the globe where they shouldn't be, and for reasons they shouldn't be.
Quote:
Here I don't know the answer whether it is cheaper to pay the small portion of taxes that end up paying for the roads, or to pay tolls.
If you could take your tax money, and use it whenever you so choose on tolls, or transportation, you would balance your own budget i.e. supply and demand. If you're not using toll roads, or transportation, you don't pay, simple as that. If you do, you pay. With taxes, you're paying whether you use those resources or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Quote:
China doesn't make enough money to cover the health care costs of the old. Putting this another way; if people are struggling to provide for their immediate families, how will they provide for elderly members of their family?
Well, that's actually an argument against yourself: China is a communist country, and the governing body provides for its people, and if they can't cover healthcare costs of the old, what makes you think we could, using a similar system?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not comparing our system to the Chinese system. What I meant was that Medicare in this nation is an "economy" on the order of the size of the entire Chinese economy. It was an over-exaggeration, but nevertheless, my point was that I don't believe there would be nearly enough charity to cover these costs.
Quote:
If you could take your tax money, and use it whenever you so choose on tolls, or transportation, you would balance your own budget i.e. supply and demand. If you're not using toll roads, or transportation, you don't pay, simple as that. If you do, you pay. With taxes, you're paying whether you use those resources or not.
You would still indirectly pay. Local companies like grocery stores and gas stations will pass this expense on to consumers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
I did not say that King O raised taxes...I did not say King O did not effectively create a "tax cut"...
It appears that you completely missed my point...thanks for the link though.
I am not a tax professional but I do believe he did sign into law a tax cut. I use TurboTax and based on my reading of their report of 2009 tax changes, the situation as they describe it is:
Quote:
For 2009 and 2010, Congress gave workers a credit of 6.2 percent of their earned income, capped at $400 for single filers and $800 for joint filers. For single filers, the credit starts phasing out at $75,000 of Adjusted Gross Income and dries up at $95,000. The phaseout zone for couples is $150,000-$190,000. Employees will get the credit in advance via lower income tax withholding in each paycheck, not as a rebate check.
Based on my reading comprehension, it appears to me it is those whose AGI exceeds the capped amount that are the one's taking the hit on the lower withholding rates. I haven't gotten farther on my taxes than entering my wife's and my W-2's and so I won't swear as gospel a complete understand. In a few weeks after I gather everything and finish my return I will know for sure. For now I'll only suggest that there MIGHT be extra incentive to contribute to an IRA for those that are close to the cap figure.
http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/irs-tax-return/5519.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121 |
Quote:
Willie,, you are just ticked off that only a handful of folks feel as you do.
you don't like Obama policies,, I get that.. is that reason to disrespect him and the office he holds by constantly referring to him as King or King Obama..
Funny thing is, he isn't any different than Bush or Clinton was in that regard.. So yeah, you are bias against him,, you just don't want to admit it.. But that's ok,,
Look around, I see a lot more than a few people that can't stand his policies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
Look around, I see a lot more than a few people that can't stand his policies.
What's your point,, we were discussing things on this thread... and many on this thread didn't find much wrong with thier tax situation this year.. Willies hatred for Obama is coloring his this entire debate.
I know this because he can't refer to him as the President or even just Obama,, he has to be "romeish" and be cool and call him the King..
..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121 |
Quote:
I know this because he can't refer to him as the President or even just Obama,, he has to be "romeish" and be cool and call him the King..
..
I seem to recall disrespecting the president was the "cool" thing to do when Bush was in office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Okay Tax Guy, curiosty got the best of me after my last post and I looked at the tax form. I can say with more certainty now that you are a fraud.
The credit is indeed real, right there on Line 63 on 1040, line 40 on form 1040a labelled: Making work pay and government retiree credits. Attach Schedule M.
For the majority of people their 2009 tax liability has indeed been lowered by $400 (single) or $800 (joint).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
You would still indirectly pay. Local companies like grocery stores and gas stations will pass this expense on to consumers.
This is true, but that's also capitalism. If you're exchanging goods and services, through private transactions, you're getting something in return, and the taxes charged go towards bettering their businesses, and advancing innovation. This breeds competition, and eventually the taxes being charged, then used, will benefit the consumer. I actually have no problem with that.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum And so it begins...(post from a
Tax Guy)
|
|
