Bathroom reading material

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The government has been our keeper ever since the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

In our area, contributions to the Salvation Army kettles were higher than any previous year, even though our local economy is hurting and there is high unemployment. Rather than retreating, more people reached out to help those who needed a hand.

There's no easy answer, but if those making more than $250,000 have to pay an extra 3.5% a year, I can't feel genuine sympathy.
 
Bina said:
Of course, a heated barn, more goats, and add some miniature horses while we're at it.:)
Click to expand...


I don't think that would get you to a $20,000 monthly total, Bina.
You'd better order some male strippers brought in via airplane if you're going to spend that kind of money.:p
 
Mary said:
I don't think that would get you to a $20,000 monthly total, Bina.
You'd better order some male strippers brought in via airplane if you're going to spend that kind of money.:p
Click to expand...
Okay - that was my belly laugh for the day.

Bina - maybe you could fly Mary and I in too!!! I'll bring some dollar bills!!!
 
Not to fuel feelings, but the median household income for the average person in the U.S. is around $50,000 per year. I'm not saying that those people didn't work and work hard for their current financial status, I'm just saying that no matter how I dice it, they fall in the wealthy category. I mean seriously, that's 5 times the median level.

Oh well. Whether any of us want to admit it or not, there is something in this package to affect all of us in one form or another.
 
Karlynn said:
But the government being your keeper - is socialism.

I just heard a tax lawyer on the news cautioning people to be careful of this additional $14/week promised to start in April, because the way the tax tables are written, you'll have to claim it as income next year and he suggested that you increase your withholding to compensate, so you don't end up paying a penalty for not having enough withheld for 2009. (In other words - let's say you make $200/week. Next year the Tax Man will say you made $214/week and want his tax based on that. It won't look at it as you making $200/week and you got a break that caused you to pay $14 less in taxes. It's going to count it as additional income.) Whether this is true - I don't know. But it's worth being cautious about.
Click to expand...

Karlynn-I think it is right to be cautious about this advice. I have a hard time understanding where the lawyer is coming from. Everything I have heard seems to indicate that tax rates will be lowered for some people, and because tax rates will be lower, withholding will be reduced, generating the extra $14.00 per month. I haven't heard anyone say there will be a new source of income that would generate more tax. It is true that you will have a little more money to pay tax on--but the tax rate that applies to all of your income will be lower than what you have paid in the past. It should be a wash, and that's why the amount they withhold from your check will be less, even though you did nothing to change the number of exemptions you claim.

Another thing that makes me dubious of this lawyer's advice is his reference to penalties for under withholding. As a business owner I dealt with withholding issues all of my professional life. Without going into mind-numbing detail, it is extremely unlikely for the average tax payer to generate an under-withholding penalty on the basis of $14.00 per week. I surely admit there is always the chance that I am completely wrong-but until someone shows me additional information, I think the lawyer may have been letting his politics cloud his advice.
 
There is no doubt that there are many things that need to be straightened out in our country. I just don't think class (or income) warfare does us any good as a country. It's one of many tools used by politicians to get elected. And throughout history it's been used in ways that ended up very disastrously.
 
Dennis - I see your point - which was why I was cautious. I just guess that right now I'm very cautious about anything we are being told. I just see a whole lot of money going out and I don't see how we're going to be able to rely on the top 5% to foot the entire bill. I think we will all be affected.

(I'll see if I can find a direct link. I heard this in the car, so I may have gotten it all wrong.)
 
Karlynn, once again I agree with you.

I am all for a flat tax being taken off the top of every paycheck or dividend check in America. If you make $19,000 a year, you pay $1,900 in tax. If you make $190,000 a year, you pay $19,000 in tax. The person who makes 10 times more pays 10 times more. What I don't think is fair is that the person who makes 10 times more pays 50 times more. With a flat tax, there would be no tax shelters, no write offs, no tax returns. We could then pretty much do away with the IRS. Yes that would mean eliminated jobs in both the public and private sector, but we shouldn't have a difficult system just so people can be employed.
 
Well I'm still reading HR 1 and it's 647 pages. What I'm seeing are continued screwed up spending priorities. This thing is enough to make Einsteins head spin. You know what folks, we gots problems.
 
Since the "Reagan Revolution" we've had class warfare directed at the middle and working class. Pre-Reagan, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent (what the rich paid,) now it's 35 percent and they are griping.

We will all have to sacrifice and those able to afford to pay more in taxes will have to do so. Calling it socialism is disengenuous. We've had a form of socialism for the rich since Reagan as they have enjoyed the bounty that this country provides without having to pay in proportion to their great wealth to support it.

We've also had plenty of "socialism" of late for the corporations, Wall Street, and the banks. It's high time some of that "socialism" benefits the poor, the working class, and the middle class.

Jim
 
Lisa in Katy said:
Karlynn, once again I agree with you.

I am all for a flat tax being taken off the top of every paycheck or dividend check in America. If you make $19,000 a year, you pay $1,900 in tax. If you make $190,000 a year, you pay $19,000 in tax. The person who makes 10 times more pays 10 times more. What I don't think is fair is that the person who makes 10 times more pays 50 times more. With a flat tax, there would be no tax shelters, no write offs, no tax returns. We could then pretty much do away with the IRS. Yes that would mean eliminated jobs in both the public and private sector, but we shouldn't have a difficult system just so people can be employed.
Click to expand...

AMEN!!! Why should someone who makes more money have to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes? Obviously, someone is going to have to pay for the mess our country is in, but we should shoulder the responsibility equally.

I know for my husband and his business partner, layoffs will happen if the taxes become unbearable. What good does that do the government? I'm sure we aren't the only small business owners who will go that route.

Kim
 
Ross said:
Well I'm still reading HR 1 and it's 647 pages. What I'm seeing are continued screwed up spending priorities. This thing is enough to make Einsteins head spin. You know what folks, we gots problems.
Click to expand...
Hey - just let me know when you're out of the bathroom - I need to take a shower!!!:p:p:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top