90% of US Households Face Huge Tax Hike Next Year

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Actually, somewhat off topic, one of my best friends owns a liquor store and he's rejoicing, He's been in the business for a long time and has always maintained that his industry is a reverse of the economy. When things are good he makes less. When things are bad, he makes more. He's doing very well currently.

Fiscal depression leading to mental depression, leading to self medication leading to it being a good thing I've got a friend in the liquor business.


And, yes, we're all going to have to pitch in going forward - regardless of what party wins what race. It's a matter of discipline and desire vs doctrine and dogma at this point in the game.

~Heff




posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I am absolutely egocentric and there is a difference between laying blame on the poor and refusing to accept responsibility for them. I refuse to accept any further financial responsibility for anyone who isn't my blood. We have reached the point where it disadvantageous to myself and my family to continue to do so and, as far as I'm concerned, only a fool sinks their own canoe in an effort to rescue someone who has calcined their own. That's rule #1 of any rescue/aid course... As a rescuer, never put yourself into the position of having to be rescued when trying to save somebody else. When I'm starting to search for heating assistance, food assistance programs, and any other possible relief from the stack of bills piled up on my desk in preparation for next year because my tax bill will go sky high, then it is absolutely unacceptable to contemplate whether I'm doing enough for my fellow man and whether I can squeeze just a few more drops of blood out for them.

The world needs more egocentricism. The reason I say that is it is usually accompanied with pride and pride goes along with providing for yourself. There is no pride in letting somebody else pay your way.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Sinking canoes all around, as you put it, doesn't mean that everyone drowning is there because of they did not take care of their own canoe. They're there because of the turbulent waters.

When faced with turbulent waters, so to speak, the wise thing to do is to lash canoes together for stability.

It's amazing to me that the very things that brought our earliest ancestors into collected groups - the blessings of mutual or shared resources - is now perceived as the ultimate evil.

You're ready to pull the pin on your fellow man and blame them, or the river. I prefer to blame the guy who's controlling the flood gates who caused the deluge and turbulence to begin with.

The problem with social Darwinism is that the proponents of it don't really seem to understand Darwin at all. Survival of the fittest does not mean the strongest or most able. It refers to the most adaptable and diverse groups having the advantage.

It is truly sad to me that we live in a world where a frightened middle classed person would point the finger of blame at a disadvantaged person when the rich keep getting richer.

You're henhouse has been raided and you're loading your guns to go fox hunting because the weasel with the feathers on his lips says the fox is to blame.

~Heff
edit on 10/3/12 by Hefficide because: typo



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Delete this for being off-topic.

If you're an ATSer, and are joining the thread now GO BACK and READ all of Hefficide's and Burdman30ott6's posts in this thread. It's a better discussion than you'll ever get in debates or nearly anywhere else. This is my idea of ATS. This is fundamental and incredibly valuable stuff. Even if it's hard, work through it. My highest recommendation.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


So it seems "blame" and "rejection of responsibility for" are synonymous to you? These are entirely different concepts in my world. If I blamed the poor, I'd be out shaking the beggars down for spare change. I'm not in any way doing that, but neither am I happily sharing my productivity with them anymore.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by Hefficide
 


So it seems "blame" and "rejection of responsibility for" are synonymous to you? These are entirely different concepts in my world. If I blamed the poor, I'd be out shaking the beggars down for spare change. I'm not in any way doing that, but neither am I happily sharing my productivity with them anymore.


Blame is based upon perspective. As for rejecting responsibility? That's vague to me. Did Uncle Sam ever knock on your door and say "Here's Pete. He's your homeless person. Have fun?" Of course not. What did occur is that by participating in society you get the good with the bad. You pay to play. You enjoy the benefits and you ante up the dues for being a member of the club.

I wonder what would happen if you walked into work tomorrow and your boss said "You're fired. I spent a lot of money to open this ________ ( whatever applies to your job ) and I'm not letting you enjoy the benefits of my investment any longer." It's really the same thing in principle. You'll argue that it's not - but you are arguing from a place, admittedly of fear and self-preservation. So a bias is understandable. The point is you aren't an island. You benefit from your employers resources. That employer, in turn, benefits from other resources ( consumers, possibly government grants or contracts, etc ) It's all a circle.

Short of going full on Grizzly Adams there's really no way out of it. But to want the benefits of being a member and then refusing to pay club dues? Never works out and isn't really rational.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
And, yes, we're all going to have to pitch in going forward - regardless of what party wins what race. It's a matter of discipline and desire vs doctrine and dogma at this point in the game.

~Heff


I agree, it doesn't matter who wins, if the Government is not reduced we cannot win since we cannot pay for it....no matter how much taxes we burden the American people with.


edit on 3-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Also off topic!

It's was the debate between these two that kept me reading the thread, instead of writing it off as bipartisan b.s.
Completely agree this is what makes ATS great!

Thanks Burdman and Heff!



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Not sure if you were using the "you could get fired tomorrow" scenario in an effort to bring me to empathize with others or to indicate that I possess some claim to my company's wealth. If it is the former, that seems to be a talking point of supporters of social welfare programs. Again, it is a purely emotional argument as are most rhetorical scenarios... If the intent was the latter, then I disagree with the comparison and the proposed resultant.
1. I've directly been responsible as a productive employee for my company. We've been discussing the idea that those who produce far less than their "share" somehow deserving me shelling out a larger chunk as my "share" to compensate for their lackings. The problem with that is, in any business unit aside from union protected workers, non producers and underachievers get the pink slip. They don't keep the dead weight and demand the rest of the employees not only pick up the slack, but do so for the benefit of the unproductive.
2. If I was fired tomorrow, I'd go across the street and get a job with a different firm. If no firms were hiring, I'd have my own engineering consultation business opened before the year was over. I get it that not everyone can seamlessly do that, but everyone with gumption and drive are able to turn those traits into some manner of gainfully employment. That's simply the American Spirit and, for what it is worth, it is a dying animal, largely killed by people who feel entitled to everything simply because they exist.

Edit to add: Going Grizzly Adams is Plan B. I'm serious, by the way. That was a large part of why I live where I do.
edit on 4-10-2012 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
1. I've directly been responsible as a productive employee for my company. We've been discussing the idea that those who produce far less than their "share" somehow deserving me shelling out a larger chunk as my "share" to compensate for their lackings. The problem with that is, in any business unit aside from union protected workers, non producers and underachievers get the pink slip. They don't keep the dead weight and demand the rest of the employees not only pick up the slack, but do so for the benefit of the unproductive.


Heff been saying he just can't pay any more than he does. I think he said he makes 50k and spends about 5k in taxes and any more would really set back his quality of life, and I believe him. I would also like to put forth a senerio of a person who makes 500k per year too.

If we knocked off 25% for state/federal taxes that puts it down to 375k...

Nice big house 1.5 million with a monthly payment of 7k per month 291k
2 cars 60k each on 4 year payment 1.5k per month with insurance. 273k
Boat 2k per monthly payment and docking fees 249k
25% in savings for retirement 129k
10% college funds 81k
10% cash back up 31k

That leaves only about 2.5k per month for everything else...so one would need to dip into the cash on hand a good deal to make ends meet.

I did this to point out that a person who makes 500k can't pay any more than they do also along with Heff.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Here is an article that cites an IRS study.

They talk about taxpayers who own businesses, etc.


Over and over again we hear Democrats claim that raising tax rates on the rich won’t dampen economic recovery. They also claim it would only affect a fraction of small business owners. In yesterday’s debate, the president asserted, as he has often, that 97 percent of businesses who pay individual rates would not see a tax increase.

Well, judging from this new study by Internal Revenue Service, allowing Bush-era tax rates for high earners to expire, the centerpiece of President Obama’s tax plan and a big part of his campaign rhetoric, would mean that 1 million companies would be hit with new taxes. According to the IRS, which goes to great lengths to define a small business, high-income earners make up 24 percent of all small businesses that have employees.

Other studies (and pundits) have grossly underestimated the impact that a tax hike on high earners might take on small business, discounting owners of small C corporations and others. Wealthy earners with small businesses account for 923,000 businesses with employees. There are many more in business for themselves.....

IRS: Obama tax hike threatens one million small businesses


The IRS Report





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join