It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Tax Cuts... how do you feel?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:32 AM
I was reading this article this mornig and was wondering how you feel about it?

For a lower middle-class person, what's there not to like? Is there any negetives to this?


What's your feelings???

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:40 AM
Though my job is "professional" my salary puts me in with the working class hovering just above technical single person poverty. I should say despite my "technical" status I live very well having not made stupid decisions regarding expenses, debt, children, etc...

It's a start. Any step taken to cut the flow of funds to this monstrosity is a good step.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:52 AM
As a small business owner there is nothing in the bill that inspires me to expand, hire employees or purchase new equipment. (A first year depreciation on equipment purchases is not incentive enough in and of itself.)

We've just postponed the tough battle for another two years, IMO.

Where is the job growth stimulation?

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:55 AM
Im not really sure about the current bill going to Obama right now. It basically continues the current tax cuts, with a few other things included, like the lowering of the Social Security tax.

The thing is, I dont really trust the current government with almost anything they're trying to pass through. This new tax bill is like 2000 pages or something I think. Idk.....

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:56 AM
As a "below-poverty" college student, I can firmly say that taxes should be based off consumption, not salary. Here's the thing, if you make more money you should want to be more philanthropic. Instead, we tell rich people they HAVE to give up a certain percentage so that we can divide it up amongst the poor. What ends up happening is rich people become protective of their money, slowing down philanthropy. That's how I view it at least.

I got an idea, let's wait to see how philanthropic our government is? Medicaid, Medicare, SSI? That's hilarious!

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:01 AM
I feel that there should be a flat tax with no loopholes.

I think that the federal govt should be limited to 15% of our income. If they can't make ends meet with that much, too bad.

But if they did that, they wouldn't be able to promote class warfare the way that they do.
edit on 17-12-2010 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by butcherguy

15% is too high. God only asks for 10%, apparently, and he has the whole of creation to deal with.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by kinda kurious

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Where is the job growth stimulation?

You're seriously a small business owner and can't figure this out? I've been hurt be the weak economy; people don't go out, they don't spend and for my company to be successful I need that. If people have money to spend that means I'll be making money and if I make money, I'll have money to grow and expand.

What good would it be if they gave the money to me? People still wouldn't have any money to spend, so how exactly is that good?

No I don't understand trickle down economic schemes, even if they would work to lower my operating costs people would still rather save what-ever they had than spend it on what I had to offer but offer some cash to those who can spend it and you're sure to have some spending and returns for everyone. If I'm missing something, please, enlighten me.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

HAHAHA, when I learned Jacob told the people to pay the pharaoh one fifth of their yields I laughed out loud. Seems like we've always been duped.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by newBodyoldSoul

Implying that the rich already aren't protective of their investments? How do you think they got rich in the first place, it certainly not by giving it away nor was it by investing in just anything.

If the government bails out the really rich it's not philanthropic because it also invests in social programs for the poor? Seems to me that people will always have something to complain about; no wonder Obama is freaking out over all this. In my opinion, he's trying to be very Canadian and I really don't see how that can be a bad thing at all.

Image up here, we don't just have two parties in a minority government we currently have four in the house and probably five after the next election. Tons of negotiations throughout the parties have to be done all the time before a bill can be passed which is a good thing because it better represents the interests of the Canadian citizens. Everyone gets a piece of the pie, which is probably why everyone up here in Canada can afford to laugh and be light hearted about politics.

And for your first point, let's just say that it's way safer for the government to give tax cuts to those who have security in their lives. That means the people who have good enough credit that they can spend it on a car or a house if they want too, that means to have a decent job. I know how frustrating it can get when you're a student because most of the time you don't have any credit at all. My girlfriend is currently in that situation and I'm the one that has to help her out, not financially but just to sign the dotted lines. If anything she's the one helping me out financially but still I understand why the government makes it this way.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by Cocasinpry

I dont know about you but when I give something away to somebody who needs it I feel good.

When somebody puts a gun to my head and takes what they want from me I feel bad.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:37 AM
reply to post by Cocasinpry


Just because the government is in debt because people don't hold them accountable doesn't mean we should immediately go after the rich people. Most of them started off like regular people but made smart business decisions resulting in their accumulated wealth. Wal mart is evil why? Because they won't stop building them? Or is the reason they're building them is because people won't stop shopping there?

I'm working to accumulate wealth for my future generations and I know I don't want the gov's hands in it. My family has already, before our success, determined that a 10% tithe of our income is sufficient in doing our part for the country, and thats AFTER taxes.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:53 AM
the administration should have been addressing the tax extensions and the death tax suspension
since last year, even before the november '10 election cycle..

this extending of the Bush era tax cuts is just kicking-the-can down the road
to the next election cycle in '12.
the only thing helpful to the working class is cutting the SS tax rate for 1 year...
but that tactic is designed to bite-back.. the so called 'entitlement' known as S.S.
will be the low hanging fruit for the budget whackers to attack...claiming the program
is an excessive drain on all future growth --- which is just 'Spin'
Øbama has painted a BullsEye Target on the SS System, & they will Demonize it relentlessly,
all for a one year suspension of 2% SS taxes.

these guys are so transparent....& fickle

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:02 PM
Well...myself...I am truly worried about struggling billionaires who keep providing jobs to Chinese workers.

I mean, if they lose a few million dollars each...what will they do?

Cripes...they will be starving in the streets..stock brokers will have heart attacks because profit margins will go down slightly...affected stock prices.

I"m certainly glad that they are digging into Social Security funds again as well. That's FANTASTIC. Maybe they'll pay for the wars that haven't been paid for with that as well.

We should cut taxes for the oil companies and just end social security.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by Cocasinpry

My 12 year old company is B2B (business to business) and I don't deal with the public or end consumer. So yes I stand by my original complaint with the package as it relates to my situation. K?

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by newBodyoldSoul

I too agree that taxes should be based off consumption. The average family consumes very little when you think about it. We buy stuff to support our lives that most people buy. But outside of essentials what does the average person really consume. I think there should be a threshold on taxes. If it takes $25,000 to support one person annually and you make less than that you consume less than that you should pay no taxes. If you make $35,000 you should only be taxed on the purchases made that exceed that $25,000 mark. Now if you are some rich bastard and make $250,000 a year but live on $25,000 then that rich person should not pay any taxes. When they spend over that $25,000 then they should be taxed accordingly. I have no problem with people making money and in a lot of ways I think some well off people are unfairly taxed.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:28 PM
ummm.......lied to???

actually, my taxes will remain about the same, and well, they have taken one big headache from me ...
since I am one of the 13 million that they took the tax cut back anyways...

but, there are some people out there....about 51 million according to CNN, who will be taking home less...and no, I ain't talking about those rich folks out there...
these are the working poor and middle class people....

add to that that the way they are offsetting the demise of the making work pay tax credit is through giving us a temporary break on our social security tax, which will only serve to undermine the social security more.....
and well, let's face it for the working poor, that social security is gonna be about all they have to depend on ...well....
I am sorry, there is no way that anyone is gonna convince me that those dems in congress are so stupid, that they just didn't realize, I can only assume that all the crap that they've been throwing around about being so concerned about the middle class and poor's taxes going up, is just that... crap!! it's gonna be them that end up paying for bailouts to banks....and the million dollar bonuses....all the dems and the republicans were concerned about was the cuts for the rich and the wall street casino that they play in....


posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:56 AM

Originally posted by kinda kurious
As a small business owner there is nothing in the bill that inspires me to expand, hire employees or purchase new equipment. (A first year depreciation on equipment purchases is not incentive enough in and of itself.)

We've just postponed the tough battle for another two years, IMO.

Where is the job growth stimulation?

First, these are not new "tax cuts". They are extensions of earlier tax cuts. Allowing them to expire would have been tax increases - on every American - not just "the rich".

I'm glad you mentioned the part about the 2 years. IMO that has to be just about the dumbest strategic move on the part of obama and the dems. Reason? It postpones this debate on taxes until right in the middle of all their re-election campaigns. Obama and the dems will once again end up trying to convince people that a tax increase is good and please vote for them by the way. Making the extension for 3 years (1 year past the election) would have been the smart play, but this is just another sign the obama and the dem leadership are out of their league.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by Nightfury

I like to think my country's finances is run like I run my family's accounts. So, if we owe money we pay it by cutting the fat. In the country's case the "fat" is all the billions per year we are wasting on stupid, useless wars. Those should all be stopped then lots of the more than 800 military bases we have around the world should be closed. Then our armed forces should be restructured to be defensive only and not offensive. If all of this was done there would be lots of unemployment in the short term but in four years we'd have a balanced budget and lots of money to spend on projects here on home which would greatly increase the vitality of business and unemployment would go down.

And, no, conservatives it would not be socialism.

We have no business running around the world telling other countries what to do and how to do it.


But will this happen? No. Instead the poor will suffer even more and now we retired folk are apt to lose our social security which exists because we paid into it. It is not, and never has been subsidized by the government. It is not welfare for old folks. The reason the damned republicans want to privatize it is so the their fat cat friends can get their hands on our money to play with. Then the next time the markets crash there will tens of millions with no income at all in our fair land.

Screw war. Iraq and Afghanistan are only two places that we send our kids to die for absolutely not a #ing thing. Just like Vietnam was.

OK about taxes, do the above and the tax cuts can stay in place. But we should never spend more than we have. This is where we get into trouble every damned 10 years or so. We are a nation of fiscally stupid people.

Leave the taxes alone and cut the military down to a realistic size. Tell the big corporations that our military is no longer going to die for them. Bring the kids home. They are defending the freedom only of big business to operate in other lands.

Smedley Butler, Colonel, USMC was right!
edit on 18-12-2010 by trailertrash because: typo

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by trailertrash's our war machine that is convincing other countries that our money is worth something???
and, I kind of think that it isn't convincing enough at the present moment.

you have part of a good plan, the other part of that plan would involve how we would live without the rest of the world being forced to prop up our currency to keep our military at bay. I think part of the plan would have to include us producing more of the products that we all find necessary here in this country, If we could become a country that isn't depending on everyone else for their natural resources and products and instead are offering other countries quality products that are desired....well, those countries would be more inclined to be friendly to us, just to have good trade relations with us.. and our military might wouldn't be as needed. but it almost seems that our biggest export the past decade or so may have been our securitized debt....

new topics

top topics


log in