Dear America: Your Higher Payroll Taxes Are Not The Result Of A Tax Increase!!

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


You are correct in stateing that he wanted to continue to hold the bush era tax cuts to prevent the middle class from being hit with a tax increase after 10 years of them being implemented.

However, In addition to the bush tax cuts to continue he authorized a TEMPORARY reduction in the S.S tax that was not included in the bush tax cuts. Therefor his temporary reduction in S.s/FICA tax was in "ADDITION"

So, a temporary reduction of S.S/FICA has now been "AGGRANDIZE"


However,

“We have not seen any good-faith effort on the part of this administration to talk about the real problem that we’re trying to fix,” said Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader. “This has to be a part of this agreement or else we just continue to dig the hole deeper, asking folks to allow us to kick the can down the road further. And that we don’t want to do.”

source: www.nytimes.com...




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Can you imagine if you called your bank and said, sorry, I have not budgeted for the last 3 years but I need that new 70 inch TV, 3 xbox's, a few iPads...that's cool, right? And throw in a Aventador...in black on black.

Instead, you should cut the amount taken out of my check which will allow me to stimulate local business and not pay for government programs while cutting defense spending. If I had to pay 15% a year, so be it at least I would know everyone was doing the same thing. If you make 200.00 a week, take out 20 bucks. You are done. You should be healthcare and the rest is yours. Stimulation...

This cut the throat of everyone who did not vote for the current admin, house and congress and many of those that did. A lot of disenfranchised people walking around after that first check. If they did not need the extra revenue that could have left it in place. Are we in the black now? No, there is still no budget.

Just wait till the government tells everyone there is no money for refund checks or that they will be delayed. When people expecting money do not get it, they get violent. Hard working person is too busy to think and get violent. There are millions.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


That is a little farfetched however, you do make a good point. Since when does government use a budget based on the 0 dollar as most americans do. They are able to manipulate the budget for their pupose by allowing the budget balnced based on national GDP. So in essense they are randomly picking their butt for a higher number to indroduce a large percentage to barrow more.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Why did they temporary decrease the tax?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


they temporary reduced the federal tax so that there would be more of a stimulus to help economic recovery.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Kadmiel
 


No, it was not the FED. They continued to get that. They cut your FSOC from 6.2 to 4.2. The admin then let the decrease lapse. There was no need to let it expire except to raise money. Which means at that time, it is an increase.

Make sure all of you know what taxes you are paying and how to fill out a W4



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kadmiel
reply to post by interupt42
 


they temporary reduced the federal tax so that there would be more of a stimulus to help economic recovery.


So why would less taxes be good for the economy?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 

Forgive me, I may be misinterpreting your question. Before I get into it too deeply, could you clarify it for me?

So why would less taxes be good for the economy?
Are you asking for a description of how a tax cut helps the economy, or are you expressing disbelief, saying that tax cuts don't help the economy? If the latter, we can resolve it fairly quickly. If tax cuts are bad for the economy, it should be safe to assume that tax increases are good for the economy. If they are good, why not raise taxes to 100% and we'll have the best economy the world has ever seen?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Have you done your 2012 taxes? See that little box 12 and the DD? You have insurance. My insurance is valued at $6,800.00, my boyfriend's is valued at $8,900.00 - that's added into your gross for taxation per obamacare. I made $55,000.00 without that, and my boyfriend made $40,00.00 without that. I was hoping for $6,000.00 in tax refunds this year, we got $2,500.00 together.....

OBONZO CARE! and we haven't seen the worst of it yet. My boyfriend couldn't find a dr. who would see him in central wisconsin, even though he has Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The end must be coming soon because these idiots in the White House knew this is what is going to happen.
edit on 23-1-2013 by Happy1 because: wrong year



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 

Dear Happy1,

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

My own belief is that the Federal Government takes in too much from taxes. I would like them to be reduced. I think we're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Leaving more money in the hands of the people is not only economically sound, but also morally correct. It would be good for society as a whole.

I hope this clarifies my thinking but if not, just give me a shout and get me back on track.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I'm saying that I paid through my income about $1,200.00 of the $55,000.00 that I made through the year, but the gov't is saying the money I paid for insurance is worth $6,800.00 added to my taxable income of $55,000.00 that year.

So the gov't is now taxing me as if I had "made" $61,800.00 a year.

If this gov't wanted me to have insurance that I paid for, wouldn't they want to decrease my taxable income of $55,000.00 a year by the amount that I paid for the insurance ($1,200.00) and tax me on $53,800.00 in stead of taxing my very modest income, and then adding what they figure $61,800.00 a year in "taxable" income.

I'm trying to make this understandable to you...... It's happening to all of us, and people don't understand.

The gov't is punishing you for having health insurance through your employer.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


P.S. I had no need to see a dr. last year. I'm healthy.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 

Dear Happy1,

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I believe taxing the health insurance benefit is fairly new, but it has been used for other things for some time now. If, for example, you live in an apartment complex with $1000 a month rent for any unit, and you make some kind of deal with the landlord to pay $100 a month, the IRS will consider that you received a taxable benefit of $900.

it seems as though Washington's plan is not to raise the tax rates on very many things, but to increase the number of new taxes, and impose taxes on things that were previously non-taxable. Possibilities being discussed are a national sales tax and a tax on the number of miles you drive.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


How about letting people keep their incomes and only having a sales tax? That would seem fair. You have a choice weather you're going to drive a 4 thousand dollar used car, or a 75 thousand dollar car.

Weather you're going to buy 350 dollar shoes, or wear 10 dollar sneakers like I do.

Food should remain tax free, so should energy to heat your house.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


Also, I don't have any chronic diseases. I would like to have a health insurance plan to cover emergencies, such as auto accidents, broken bones, or may pay extra for some "catastrophic" insurance - like cancer (even though my personal choice is not to have all the big medical chemo agenda things) - that's my "personal" choice - if other people want to - they should.

I know people have chronic disease not by their actions, at times, but by fate. I believe the public should pay for and support these people - even though there is a lot of fraudulant claims for these.

That's how obongo care should have been written.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join