New Taxes from President Obama

[geezer]

Originally Posted by XHILR8N!

Which means "When has he ever been freer to contribute to the economy?"

OK... whatever makes you happy.

[antflies]

Originally Posted by FistHammer

It's difficult cause were broke need more money n not enough people pay taxes, so those that do need to pay more, regardless of income.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App

The same revenue the government takes in today, would balance the budget 5 years ago.
Spending, overbudgeting might be the problem?
Wouldn't paying more in taxes, take that same money out of the economy?

[SwingLo]

Originally Posted by geezer

So... when in your working lifetime have your federal taxes been lower than they are right now?

Never. I'm 42. I make more money now than I ever have in my lifetime, as such, my federal taxes are higher.

But is that a justification to you? Taxes were lower in X year so it's kosher?

[SwingLo]

Originally Posted by geezer

OK... whatever makes you happy.

What makes me happy is taking home more of the money that I work hard for.

What makes me happy is having more of that money available for my financial goals.

What makes me happy is waking up on April 15th and knowing that every day from there on, I make money for me.

[RBH]

Originally Posted by geezer

So... when in your working lifetime have your federal taxes been lower than they are right now?

That is not the point. We do not need to increase taxes now even if we have had a decrease in the past. Nor do we need to create an environment so that consumers (us the taxpayers) spend less - or more people will end up being unemployed.

Under the new agreement about 77% of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013 (increase in federal payroll taxes for nearly everyone). If you make 40K then you will be paying about $600 more a year. If you make 75K you will pay $850 more a year.

Our population is about 315 million. Let’s say that only 10% work and pay taxes and they make 40K. That is 31.5 million X $600 (this is less money for spending) = $18,900,000,000.00. This will be the amount of money that the government will take from the people to spend on whatever. This will not be money that consumers (taxpayers) will be spending, buying goods and services. Divide this big number by 40K (average household salary; because this money will no longer be keeping people employed) = 472,500 - this is the number of people that will be out of a job because consumers/taxpayers will not be spending this money in the market.

I personally do not think that I want to have 472,500 more unemployed people.

The calculation above is simplified just to give an idea of what will be occurring. According to the census bureau there are 114,800,000 households in the United States and 77% of that number is 88,396,000 households will be paying more taxes. You can do the math from here to figure out how many more people will be losing their jobs - the number will look worse.

The government needs to spend less money and learn how to live on a budget like the rest of us.

[ezmoney]

When in our lifetime has the government ever spent more money than they spend right now? When in the history of this country has more money been spent by the government than right now?

[SwingLo]

Originally Posted by geezer

So... when in your working lifetime have your federal taxes been lower than they are right now?

Coming back to this - it's simple.

I don't want to hear ANY talk about tax increases until I hear equal or exponentially more, about spending.

It's very simple to me. I pay 35% of my income in taxes. I see wasteful spending en masse. I see the government taking that money and giving it to people who can't be bothered to show up for work.

With a name like 'Geezer', I'm assuming you have kids (or are a big Black Sabbath bassist fan). I'll use a kid analogy:

If I give my kids $10 a week allowanc and they come crying because they 'need more allowance' for x,y,z. My first question is 'well,what do you need it for?' and the next is 'what happened to the $10 from this week, and last week and the week before? What did you buy'. They then proceed to tell me they wasted it away on candy, stupid Pokeman cards or Slurpees.

My response? Sorry, your decision was to waste it on silly things as opposed to saving up to buy what you want (say, a DS or iPod). So, no, you don't get more allowance...

SPEND THE GENEROUS AMOUNT I ALREADY GIVE YOU MORE WISELY.


That sums up my entire feeling about taxes.

[lotusforsale]

Originally Posted by RBH

That is not the point. We do not need to increase taxes now even if we have had a decrease in the past. Nor do we need to create an environment so that consumers (us the taxpayers) spend less - or more people will end up being unemployed.

Under the new agreement about 77% of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013 (increase in federal payroll taxes for nearly everyone). If you make 40K then you will be paying about $600 more a year. If you make 75K you will pay $850 more a year.

Our population is about 315 million. Let’s say that only 10% work and pay taxes and they make 40K. That is 31.5 million X $600 (this is less money for spending) = $18,900,000,000.00. This will be the amount of money that the government will take from the people to spend on whatever. This will not be money that consumers (taxpayers) will be spending, buying goods and services. Divide this big number by 40K (average household salary; because this money will no longer be keeping people employed) = 472,500 - this is the number of people that will be out of a job because consumers/taxpayers will not be spending this money in the market.

I personally do not think that I want to have 472,500 more unemployed people.

The calculation above is simplified just to give an idea of what will be occurring. According to the census bureau there are 114,800,000 households in the United States and 77% of that number is 88,396,000 households will be paying more taxes. You can do the math from here to figure out how many more people will be losing their jobs - the number will look worse.

The government needs to spend less money and learn how to live on a budget like the rest of us.

Your explanation needs a little clarification. The 2% tax is not federal income tax, it is re-instating the 2% 'cut' in Social Security payroll withholdings over the last two years.

Now, I never thought that cut was a smart idea to begin with, seeing as how SS was on the verge of collapse before that, and how the SS trust fund is full of IOU's to pay for other government programs. For about a year and a half now SS benefits paid out each month have exceeded payroll withholdings brought in. So the original 2% tax 'cut' or 'holiday' was never really a good idea.

So re-instating it on its face would seem to be a good idea. And if that revenue were to be used to go back into the trust fund or to bring us even on the benefits paid/withholdings equation, but that is not the case.

Obama intends to SPEND that money on other things, what he euphemistically refers to as 'investments.' He has no intent whatsoever to use any increase tax revenue, whether the SS withholding cut being re-instated or the tax rate going up on $400K + earners and small businesses, to actually pay down our debt. No, he is on record saying he wants to spend it all.

[ezmoney]

As Ronald Reagan used to say:
•"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
•"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."
•"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Benjamin Franklin