It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Didn't know Obama lowered your taxes? Thought he raised them? You're not alone.

page: 7
44
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
When are people going to understand that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is NOT a tax increase?

I know I'll get flamed for posting this.

The Bush tax cuts were always designed to be TEMPORARY. If Bush had of wanted them permanent, he should have had the balls to put the permanency to a vote, but lacked the political will because he knew he wouldn't be President when they expired and that he wouldn't have to deal with it.

It's not an increase, the short term special has simply expired and you're going back to the same rate of tax you paid before.

It's just like when a store puts something on a discounted rate, and then when the discount special period is over it goes back to regular price. It's not an increase - it's just that the temporary price special is over. Should be a simple enough concept for the average American with a grade 8 education (otherwise known as a viewer of FOX news) to grasp.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Of course its a tax increase. Regardless of whether or not the current tax rates were implemented on a temporary basis, to let them expire is raising taxes. You can play semantics all you want.

How about this logic? Joe is on welfare and gets $100/month last month he got $80. Welfare, at least in the terms that are described by the liberals who consistently choose to support welfare and associated hand-outs is that they are temporary. They are used for a period of time for folks to "get back on their feet". Joe gets his welfare check and its $80. Was his welfare payment cut? The same folks who suggest that letting the tax cuts expire is not raising taxes are the same folks who would be outraged that Joe's handout was reduced



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Mahree
 


Will you rather pay a fine of even $1000 for not insuring someone, or would you rather pay for a employees healthcare insurance at $8K every year?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by toltecnightmare
 


Shhhhhh...you'll spoil the moods of misinformed.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by Mahree
 


Will you rather pay a fine of even $1000 for not insuring someone, or would you rather pay for a employees healthcare insurance at $8K every year?


I don't think that is a valid idea of choice. I would imagine that not having insurance is because they do not have the money to pay for it. That is usually the reason.

Mahree
edit on 10/19/2010 by Mahree because: missed a word

edit on 10/19/2010 by Mahree because: messed up again.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 
And Cris Angel really went through the wood chipper! And Obama is an American citizen and 911 was perpetrated by 20 uneducated, illiterate Muslims. You can tell the left wingnuts are sweating because they are posting this garbage everywhere. Go drink some more Kool-Aid.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mahree
 


Actually, it depends on age. Young people are very likely not to purchase health insurance because they don't deem it necessary. Is that smart? I don't know. Some folks might figure that they are young and healthy enough that its not worth a few hundy a month.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


HAHAHA that's funny. Obama can't even introduce legislation. He hasn't done anything to reduce taxes, yo unuthuggers are hilarious. He wants to raise taxes not lower them. In January, everyone will see when the tax cuts expire, the death tax is back, the marriage penalty is back etc...

Jaden



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
In 2009, the US Federal Government collected $2,105 Billion from all sources. In 2010, the expected collection is $2,165 Billion. That would be an increase of roughly 3%. Of course personal incomes may raise by 3% as well for the year making taxes flat in relative terms based on revenues. (source: www.usgovernmentrevenues.com) So no, it cannot be said that taxes will decrease in 2010.

The US Federal Government spent $3,518 Billion in 2009. In 2010 the US government expects to spend $3,721 Billion. This represents roughly a 6% increase. (source: usgovernmentspending.com) If someone says "Good news, you're getting a 3% raise, a 3% tax increase, and I'll be spending an additional 3% more of your money for now on on top of the 3% taxes to account for fresh government spending." I'd hardly look at as something that will put more money in my pocket. And of course I'd laugh off any comments about "Obama's 2010 tax cuts".

The idea of that US Presidents can be responsible for changes in the budget is very ridiculous on several levels. First of all, congress actually sets the budget in the US, not the executive branch. I'm not sure why people are so intent on a system by which one person is placed in charge and considered responsible (as in a tyranny) compared to a democracy where elected officials simply do what the public instructs them to. Of course, such a fanasy world is laughable in that it does not exist, but people always seem to forget that is how its supposed to work.

If you are reading this there is a great chance I blame you more than Obama for what goes on in the US Federal Government since anybody who pays their taxes and votes is responsible for what their elected officials are doing. People don't understand that responsibility is not something that can be divided up or handed off... it can only be shared. If you voted for someone with a (R) or (D) next to their name chances are that "your guy" did nothing to shrink government and in fact did a boatload to grow its insane proportions that much crazier. The Democrats through increasing taxes and increasing socialist programs, or the Republicans by increasing the size and scope of the state. So if you vote that way (except for a select few libertarian candidates), then I blame you (the guy who helped put Obama in power) much more than I blame Obama himself..

Then in turn, congress is responsible too since they acted on behalf of voters who give them the authority. Obama was hardly involved at all though he does have a little bit of influence which of course he mostly delegates out to people like George Soros, bankers, other rich guys, etc, when they gave him all that money to get where he is today.

In Japan, 25% (and counting) of taxes go simply to paying off interest on the national debt. Expect the same thing to happen in the US soon. Of course I highly doubt US citizens will take such financial rape by debt slavery as well as the Japanese seem to be taking it. The chances of a global financial collapse are virtually guaranteed over the next decade as the vast majority of "1st World" countries face debt loads that are well beyond impossible to sustain. I'd call that one hell of a tax on the public even if it isn't technically considered taxes.

Its true that I hold Obama responsible for putting the US Federal Government on a path to self-destruction, given the $4.5 Trillion increase in the debt load of the US government under his term. I'm not sure whether to thank Obama for helping to hammer the last nails on the coffin given how much that government sucks, or be angry at him for participating in the destruction. But again, there are plenty of other people just as or more responsible. The US government is set up so that the legislative branch sets the budget and the president merely signs it. Obama could veto the budget repeatedly but of course that would result in congress getting the 2/3 majority needed to over-ride the vetos. Congress in turn would merely do what the people who vote them allow them to. Obviously the brunt of the blame needs to lie squarely on the minority of people in the neighborhoods of the US who vote (and vote like morons) every single year without fail.

About 44% of people in the US vote in presidential elections. And about half of those actually "get their man in". Therefore about 25% or less of the population at any given time are in charge, and only then in theory. Not very democratic. The system itself is flawed and will collapse, and contrary to what several people have said that fact is entirely on topic. As was pointed out several times on page one, the system participants believe that taking without asking is fine and dandy if done by a big mob for "noble causes". This ethical mistake has resulted in huge numbers of problems and will continue to so long as people continue failing in their ethics.
edit on 19-10-2010 by truthquest because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by Califemme
 


See this is exactly what I am talking about here, where did this come from? It's not the fact that tax rates have gone down for the majority of Americans under Obama, but the fact that the government taxes citizens at all that people are complaining about now!

Is this simply because you must have something against Obama, must find some reason to hate him and all government? Does the fact that he is helping the working classes by lowering their taxes means somehow that there must be a new tax-based argument instead?

America cannot hate the man for lowering their taxes so they become Anarcho-Libertarians to find a new reason to hate him. Insanity.



I really don't see a lot of people revolting about simply being taxed. I believe they are more upset by what they consider a lack of representation in the Congress. More about how "our" money is being spent. Bailouts for the the unworthy, greed, corruption, endless wars, etc, These things tend to upset the sensetive ones.

I have read this whole thread and am still not clear where the tax breaks are at. Are you refering to his "proposed plan", or the tax credit/advance??? Can someone answer that question directly?

Helping the working class aye? I don't see it. He may have good intentions, I don't know,,, But with QE2 on the way, I look for more inflation and higher unemployment, Not the kind of help I am looking for at the moment.

Well I suppose there is the "free" health care to look forward to. Maybe I can get on the Welfare, housing assistance, food stamps? Thanks anyway



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Of course its a tax increase. Regardless of whether or not the current tax rates were implemented on a temporary basis, to let them expire is raising taxes. You can play semantics all you want.

How about this logic? Joe is on welfare and gets $100/month last month he got $80. Welfare, at least in the terms that are described by the liberals who consistently choose to support welfare and associated hand-outs is that they are temporary. They are used for a period of time for folks to "get back on their feet". Joe gets his welfare check and its $80. Was his welfare payment cut? The same folks who suggest that letting the tax cuts expire is not raising taxes are the same folks who would be outraged that Joe's handout was reduced


As long as you blame this "tax-increase" as you would like to call it on GWB, then I am fine with this. This legislation was set to expire for a reason. If it was determined to be permanent, it would have been permanent. Obama has nothing to do with this. I didn't see you write this, but I am guessing you are placing blame by reading your post. If not, my apologies. BTW, just so we all know I am not a fan of any political party, so I can get that out of the way.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


What good are decreased taxes when you don't even have a job to pay them?



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
OBAMA sucks plane and simple. This is the new america. being enslaved by the goverments. forced to pay taxes that go to other peoples heathcare or retirement. screw this new slavery



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




It's the oldest trick in the world. Tell lies about your opponent and keep repeating them while, at the same time, denying it all. It is the method used by Gobbels in Germany and it is the method used by the right wingers in this country. Fox news does it every day. Beck does it every day and people love him. They are putty in his hands and he knows it.

Once you realize this it is easy to see through them and ignore them. But most people are either incapable of understanding this or they don't care. This is used to great advantage and the liberals will lose almost every time because they refuse to deceive people. Like they say, "good guys finish last".

tt



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by trailertrash
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




It's the oldest trick in the world. Tell lies about your opponent and keep repeating them while, at the same time, denying it all. It is the method used by Gobbels in Germany and it is the method used by the right wingers in this country. Fox news does it every day. Beck does it every day and people love him. They are putty in his hands and he knows it.

Once you realize this it is easy to see through them and ignore them. But most people are either incapable of understanding this or they don't care. This is used to great advantage and the liberals will lose almost every time because they refuse to deceive people. Like they say, "good guys finish last".

tt

So very true ...but perhaps you got right and left backwards? Eh? Well no not really they both do it and lately the volume has been really cranked up. Turn off the TV, it might help.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by Califemme
 


Business taxes should go up and needed too for a long time.



You obviously have never owned a business to say that. Businesses are taxed on a much more aggresive schedule than an individual. If a business does not have a good tax accountant they can hemorrhage money, and go out of business just due to tax burden. It's THAT aggresive. How would you like it if at the end of the year any saving or surplus you had saved up got a 30% big wet bite taken out of it? That's what happens to a C corp with funds left in the wrong column of the ledger at the end of the year. Guess what? When the govn't takes more money from me I have less money for employees. I don't make a lot more money than some of my more valuable employees. They do a similar job so they make similar money. The more money that goes to taxes the less money everyone makes regardless of whether it comes off the top, the bottom, or the middle.

When business taxes go up, YOUR taxes go up. In the form of paycuts, layoffs, pay raise freezes, hiring freezes, increased cost of goods, and services etc... Face it when any sector's tax goes up YOU the little man pay for it. So do not wish an increase in business taxes. It decreases your pay, if it doesn't eliminate your job while it increases the cost of what you want to buy. That's a nobody wins scenario. When will people realize that when you pinch the golden goose it quits laying eggs and you starve? Same with Cap and Trade, or any other "hidden tax" it has nothing to do with making big corps more responsible. It has everything to do with squeezing the individual taxpayer dry.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Some people need the proverbial roof to fall on their heads.
Not paying attention unless they say it on FOX. He could have brought them presents at Christmastime and dumped them under the tree and they would still hate the man. They hate him on principal.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

I've readily demonstrated that taxation, unless shown to be an unreasonably burden, cannot be classified as 'theft' in the democratic state.


Does it require the threat of violence?

Yes.

Therefore, it is impossible for taxes to not be theft.

Ultimately the use of violence or threats of violence to expropriate property is theft no matter who does the stealing.

A criminal can not claim the moral high ground if he engages in armed robbery to feed his family - and neither can the State.



Finally somebody who understands!
Spoken like a true fellow Anarchist, my friend. Well said.


I don't care whether or not Obama lowered or raised taxes -- the taxes are there whether lower or higher. And as Mnemeth stated, taxes are extortion (theft by threats of violence). So what, now they're stealing LESS than they used to? Great, but they're still stealing my hard-earned money either way. This whole system is beyond ridiculous. This cannot be the best system and concept that humanity has to offer; it's the best system for a few people to rob a bunch of people blind, while the bunch are supporting the robbery of their own hard-earned money. What a blunder we've all made to allow such tyranny to control us. They're all just a big merry bunch of gangsters who create the law around them so that their crimes are justified and legal, while anybody else who does it and is not within their inner-circle gets punished for committing theft that pales in comparison to the State's crimes. Law is always on the State's side, no matter what they do, because they create the laws around them. It's "okay" and legally, as well as "morally", acceptable for those that *govern you* (see: control you) to steal from you.

Peace,
Fangula okay buy



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
deleted. wrong thread.
edit on 20-10-2010 by GogoVicMorrow because: ...



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Stop whinging, compared to most other countries Americans pay ridiculously low taxes. 35% tax on $379,000?? No wonder the countries going broke. Obama should increase taxes by 50%.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join