Dems "FiscalCliff" ConGame: $1 in Spending Cuts for Every $41 in Tax Increases, More Taxes to Come

Originally posted by foodstamp
With my low income, I am having to pay $42 bucks more a year with the new tax policy. I'm also getting MORE money back for my earned income tax credit. So in fact, I'm about $800 better off then I was last year.

You need to find a better source of information. It isn't $42 a year! It is an additional 2% out of your paycheck each and every time your employer pays you. It is also 2% extra out of his ability to pay you, per pay-period.

Dig it?

Do you?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Uhh, yeah I get it... I did my taxes today... I got my totals from both the previous years policy and the current one that was decided on just recentley... it's 42 total.. I don't know what YOUR refering too. But my increase was forty two dollars period.

It sounds like your reading a conservative article. Try reading a more liberal article about the tax rates. And somewhere in between the two. You'll find the truth...

** The forty two dollars is what I will pay more this year because of the tax increase. Does that help?

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Uhh, yeah I get it... I did my taxes today... I got my totals from both the previous years policy and the current one that was decided on just recentley... it's 42 total.. I don't know what YOUR refering too. But my increase was forty two dollars period.

It sounds like your reading a conservative article. Try reading a more liberal article about the tax rates. And somewhere in between the two. You'll find the truth...

It reverted back to the 6.2% rate, from 4.2%. It is impossible to be only $42 over the whole year unless you are making next to nothing; as in below minimum wage.

Also, if you just did your taxes, it is for the 2012 rate....not the new 6.2% rate.

Post Script:
Also, you didn't see an increase...unless you are referring to your "refund". Using the $25,000/year and 2 exemptions, go from a -20% effective tax rate to a -21% effective tax rate; so yes, you will "get" more money back. But the payroll tax increase (from the sunset "holiday") takes more from your paycheck.

Also, I read no articles and go to the source. I don't trust any one, republican/democrat, liberal/conservative.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Uhh, yeah I get it... I did my taxes today... I got my totals from both the previous years policy and the current one that was decided on just recentley... it's 42 total.. I don't know what YOUR refering too. But my increase was forty two dollars period.

It sounds like your reading a conservative article. Try reading a more liberal article about the tax rates. And somewhere in between the two. You'll find the truth...

It reverted back to the 6.2% rate, from 4.2%. It is impossible to be only $42 over the whole year unless you are making next to nothing; as in below minimum wage.

Also, if you just did your taxes, it is for the 2012 rate....not the new 6.2% rate.

No forgive me for misdirecting you.

I did my taxes today yes. And yes I'm aware of the increase. What your not accounting for though is the Earned Income credit increase and another tax credit ( i can't think the name)..When it's all said and done. The total amount i will be paying in (with the 6.2% rate) is forty two dollars more than what I would have been paying with the old tax rules..

I can't stand Obama, but he did me right when it comes to taxes... Heh

reply to post by foodstamp


Our payroll liability has gone up, but with "tax credits" (seriously, our tax-code is so convoluted) you will be "getting" more back. My suggestion, as others have already said, starve the beast and push your withholding up to the max. You will be able to save more from each paycheck but you will have to budget (unless of course your standard deductions and various credits negate your liability) to pay your tax bill come April.

Also, Obama did nothing; this was Congress as was "Bush's" tax bill. They passed it, the president only signed it. It isn't him that gets credit in my opinion.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I wonder what our states would look like if we gave all that FED tax money to our own state and into our own state welfare system. On the surface It would seem the states would do so much better.. For awhile at least.. Give the FED's just enough for an Army. The states can handle the rest... Heh.. That'd be nice..

reply to post by foodstamp


You mean like the first 100+ years of our existence? Yep it would but we would have to rid us of the 16th Amendment to do that. To even get close to that we would have to get rid of the 17th Amendment to bring power back to the states in the Senate. Not going to happen.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by foodstamp

 

You mean like the first 100+ years of our existence? Yep it would but we would have to rid us of the 16th Amendment to do that. To even get close to that we would have to get rid of the 17th Amendment to bring power back to the states in the Senate. Not going to happen.

Ohh yeah, I'm just dreaming, it'd never happen.

It's funny that you bring up the old days. I was looking at old cartoons from newspapers back in and around 1915. They had these political cartoons that showed the government as this big hoarder of money because they had a huge money surplus! Funny to see that considering these days and times, going from a 100 million surplus in the 1900's all the way to 16 trillion in debt after the creation of the FED reserve system... Damn shame..

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Are you aware of any states that had anything that resembled a welfare system in the early 1900's?

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Are you aware of any states that had anything that resembled a welfare system in the early 1900's?

Probably not much. At those times the belief was that private charity is enough and honestly it can be. It used to be the belief that government's role wasn't for the welfare of the People in the sense it is today. Welfare of the People should be to provide an environment that fosters growth and prosperity.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Are you aware of any states that had anything that resembled a welfare system in the early 1900's?

Probably not much. At those times the belief was that private charity is enough and honestly it can be. It used to be the belief that government's role wasn't for the welfare of the People in the sense it is today. Welfare of the People should be to provide an environment that fosters growth and prosperity.

Right I agree with that. However, if the people foster a community of growth and prosperity, they can assemble a welfare system at the state level for it's citizens. I can't think of anything that would block that from happening should the people desire.

That's one thing I don't often agree with many people on. Some people think that because the federal government was not given the power to make a welfare system, that somehow tht means that the sovereign state cannot and/or should not assemble one for itself.

Ask me, I'd say just about everything should function at a state level. Except those powers delegated to the Feds of course...Most of our problems today seem to be from malicious misinterpretations of the constitution of the United States in order to give them more control.

Originally posted by foodstamp
Right I agree with that. However, if the people foster a community of growth and prosperity, they can assemble a welfare system at the state level for it's citizens. I can't think of anything that would block that from happening should the people desire.

See the 10th Amendment for that one.....but no one at the Federal level, save a few Supreme Court cases has even touched it.

That's one thing I don't often agree with many people on. Some people think that because the federal government was not given the power to make a welfare system, that somehow tht means that the sovereign state cannot and/or should not assemble one for itself.

See above. If you are running into people who think that the state doesn't have the authority and it should be the Federal government doing the heavy lifting is ignorant on the Constitution. It should be exactly as you just wrote. If a state wishes to implement a wide-net welfare system they seek the People for that guidance. If they agree, then it is implemented for that State only. People can leave as they wish if they do not want to be part of that type of system.

Sadly, when the Federal government mandates it, there is nowhere to run save out of country.

reply to post by foodstamp

Your "policy?"
Do you even know what you're looking at, or for?

The "payroll tax holiday" took effect in 2010. Your Social Security withholding has been lower since then by 2%.
Social Security withholding is 15%, with your employer making up the difference between what you pay and what is due.

Your withholding is going up by 2%.
25,000 x .02= 500.

This, of course, doesn't increased pass-throughs that producers will be adding to their prices to make up for the loss of income they face under the "deal."

reply to post by beezzer


How could we organize this?

Op Clean Sweep sounds nice.

reply to post by cenpuppie

Do you live in a neighborhood with a volunteer board?
Do you have a blog?
Have you ever written a letter to the editor?
Hosted house meetings or parties
Put up posters or leaflets, or talk with pedestrians or walk door-to-door?
Used social networks to organize groups or spread ideas?

There are many ways to develop a movement. "Grass roots" is a reference to a foundation or heginning from the people, rather than the creation of an orgaization filtered down to the people from authority or leadership.