Obama & mitt
-
Trafik Jamz;327506 wrote:
I think points 2 & 3 are tied together there Dave. Right now businesses are rightfully afraid to hire people because they are unsure how Obamacare is going to affect them next year..... and they are terrified that they will be taxed/penalized for people who are offered major medical and refuse it as the business AND the employee will take a tax hit unless the cost of healthcare expense would have exceeded more than 9.5% of that persons income.... or if they work for someone who employs less than 50 full time equivalents.Yup. Obamacare is one thing that is holding businesses back. And the talk about "making the rich pay their fair share" of taxes is another.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;327508 wrote:
Yup. Obamacare is one thing that is holding businesses back. And the talk about "making the rich pay their fair share" of taxes is another.I have a feeling everyone is going to see a slight tax increase.... regardless of who is in office. Either by closed loopholes or actual percentage increases.
-
Trafik Jamz;327510 wrote:
I have a feeling everyone is going to see a slight tax increase.... regardless of who is in office. Either by closed loopholes or actual percentage increases.Not everyone. There will still be close to half that won't pay any fed income tax.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;327511 wrote:
Not everyone. There will still be close to half that won't pay any fed income tax.And that number will continue to grow as the baby boomers continue to retire since many of their lifelong investments were pre-taxed and will not be subject to income tax come retirement (All of my IRA's and my 401K are Roth style.... tax when money is made, not when it is drawn)
-
Trafik Jamz;327514 wrote:
And that number will continue to grow as the baby boomers continue to retire since many of their lifelong investments were pre-taxed and will not be subject to income tax come retirement (All of my IRA's and my 401K are Roth style.... tax when money is made, not when it is drawn)You missed the point and fail at investing.
-
No, I didn't miss the point, nor do I fail at investing. It is FAR better by all of my financial planners estimates to pay tax on say $100+/week now (and for the past 19 or so years) than to pay tax on 7 figures in 25 years. My investment portfolio (aside from ROTH and 401K) are subject to capital gains as not all of them are in a TSA, mostly because I like to have some liquidity.
The point is that many people who are currently NOT paying taxes paid them for a pretty significant portion of their lives and a lot of them are drawing so little taxable income that they are not required to pay income tax. That is a fact. It is also a fact that there are a shitload of people who have never paid any income tax because they are too fucking lazy to get a job (which is the point I think you were getting at) and also that far too many people that are working don't earn enough to be required to pay federal income taxes after deductions.
I find it ironic that the republican's are pissed that the bottom half of the population don't pay any (income) taxes at all when they are striving for the same for the top half (we all are, let's be honest.... if you could find enough tax write-offs to where you were not required to pay taxes, you would utilize every single one of those write offs..... I know I try to get there). The lower half (if they are employed) are still paying into Medicare, Social Security, etc... via FICA, though their (and your) personal contribution is currently lessened by a little bit due to a tax relief measure put in place in 2009 by the "Making Work Pay" tax credit.
Now, I'm not trying to sound Pro-Obama here, I didn't vote for the guy last time or this time. I kinda wish we could re-write the last 4 years and see how things REALLY would have changed w/ a McCain presidency, my guess is financially we wouldn't be much better off than we are today as a country. (I have no faith in either party)
For the record, I don't think Romney will have enough electoral votes to win this election, though he will likely win the popular vote by 3% or more.
-
Trafik Jamz;327518 wrote:
I find it ironic that the republican's are pissed that the bottom half of the population don't pay any (income) taxes at all when they are striving for the same for the top halfNice speech, too bad its not accurate. They do NOT strive, they live off the system.
-
Not everyone in the lower 50% live off the system (though around 50% do receive a direct benefit from the government.... including most farmers http://farm.ewg.org/region.php). To say they ALL do is quite the stretch.... and to say that all of them strive to stay on these benefits is even more asinine. But I will concede that about 1/2 of the population receives a benefits.
I agree, for some people they feel they are better off not working rather than take a lower income job. For example, I think we've all heard stories of people who make less money taking a job than if they continue with unemployment. It SUCKS that this is the case, but I don't know if I can blame someone who has a family for staying on the system and maintaining their health benefits for themselves and their children instead of going to work at a job that won't be able to pay their bills (that they accumulated when they were working at a decent job before the economy started crashing in 2008). Ultimately we all do what is best for ourselves and our families, even if sometimes it isn't our ideal situation.
Now they are stuck in a perpetual spiral, they can't get a better job because their credit scores have dropped and they can't get out of debt because they can't get a job (my company won't allow us to hire anyone with a credit score lower than 600 for example)... so they can't get a job to get out of debt and they can't pay off their debt to get a better job.
Three-quarters of entitlement benefits written into law in the United States go toward the elderly or disabled. That’s according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And a big chunk of the rest goes to working households. Only about 9 percent of all entitlement benefits go toward non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance)
I found the charts above interesting and I am posting them for a point of discussion more than anything.
-
Trafik Jamz;327537 wrote:
I found the charts above interesting and I am posting them for a point of discussion more than anything.
Holy misleading charts batman. Did you read the fine print at the bottom of the chart?
"The bottom 20% means the 20% of tax units with the lowest incomes; the same is true for the other income categories"
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;327538 wrote:
Holy misleading charts batman. Did you read the fine print at the bottom of the chart?"The bottom 20% means the 20% of tax units with the lowest incomes; the same is true for the other income categories"
I did miss that Dave. Good catch.
-
Never have voted for the guy. So not sure how I could be.
I vote for the people I like and think would do a good job. Neither party has a lock on the core values of Chuck Schwan and likely none ever will. I do like to debate/argue though, I can't deny that... and since most of my friends lean waaaaaay to the right I tend to pick the debates from the left side of the aisle. Some of my blood relatives are from the far left, I argue with them all the time as well. On here the board (or those willing to engage in debate) are typically of the far right, so you see the left argument/debates from me.
I haven't picked the winning president in an election since Clinton in 1996... and I've only voted democrat once since then. Figure that one out and tell me that I'm an obamabot.
As for the charts, like I said, I posted them online for a point of discussion. Dave found a flaw in one of them. Fair enough... but if the writing IS on the chart, is it REALLY intentionally misleading? I mean, it clearly states how they came up with the numbers for the chart. And, it is for tax expenditures which are defined as "Revenue a government foregoes through the provisions of tax laws that allow (1) deductions, exclusions, or exemptions from the taxpayers' taxable expenditure, income, or investment, (2) deferral of tax liability, or (3) preferential tax rates.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tax-expenditure.html#ixzz2Bz7Kfmsv"
As I understand the fine print (and someone please correct me if I am incorrect) they looked at the bottom 20% who actually paid income taxes and then figured out the average amount of expenditures that they received as a whole. Again, if I am misinterpreting that correct me. I AM human. I do make mistakes and try to learn from them.
-
Trafik Jamz;327542 wrote:
As for the charts, like I said, I posted them online for a point of discussion. Dave found a flaw in one of them. Fair enough... but if the writing IS on the chart, is it REALLY intentionally misleading?Whenever I see charts like that, I always go back to the source and research them a little to see where they are coming from. It was pretty obvious from looking at their web site that they are left leaning. As for your question, yes I still think it is misleading, even thought there is a disclaimer on the bottom. I'd venture to bet that the majority of people who see those charts don't bother to read the fine print, and the people who make the charts are banking on that.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
The point is that it still isn't all that inaccurate really. Yes, only those that pay into taxes at all are going to have major tax expenditures. Honestly, if you are below the poverty level you probably aren't going to have any of those expenditures... That is my take on the chart.
-
Trafik Jamz;327544 wrote:
The point is that it still isn't all that inaccurate really. Yes, only those that pay into taxes at all are going to have major tax expenditures. Honestly, if you are below the poverty level you probably aren't going to have any of those expenditures... That is my take on the chart.My take on the chart is that someone with an easily seen agenda made it, so I don't put any stock in it's validity.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Trafik Jamz;327544 wrote:
The point is that it still isn't all that inaccurate really. Yes, only those that pay into taxes at all are going to have major tax expenditures. Honestly, if you are below the poverty level you probably aren't going to have any of those expenditures... That is my take on the chart.You see what you want to see. No more, no less. It's the progressive mindset.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login