Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 110
  1. MGoerke's Avatar
    Posts
    54 Posts
    Global Posts
    58 Global Posts
    #21  
    i could see if you got salary ou should notice but i would not have noticed if my boss did not update us! But alogn with that didn't Cali raise taxes late November & all of December? Raised taxes for month of December! I get Hourly pay & my hours are VERY ir regular so + or - even 50 would go un noticed!
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yea. Exactly. It was a consumer stimulus tax break to increase consumer spending. Stop framing it otherwise and show whether it did or did not perform as planned.
    An economic stimulus, by definition, has to be noticeable to work. If itís not noticeable then it wonít encourage spending. This poll shows that people arenít noticing it so its proper to ask whether or not itís going to even work.
  3. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I think it's your responsibility to cite your claim.
    This post http://forums.precentral.net/off-top...ml#post2219847 is accurate, and my accountant concurs. No one is getting anything for free...you will just get a smaller return (if you were getting one). If you pay quarterlies like I do, you completely ignore this silly money shift.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    An economic stimulus, by definition, has to be noticeable to work.
    Only to the extent people notice an extra $20 in there wallet every week. That's the point to stimulate consumer spending.
  5. #25  
    I am pleasantly surprised by the replies in this thread.

    The conservatives in the thread have stated and reinforced that $20 a week isn't very much money and doesn't affect their lives much at all. Certainly doesn't mean much to their lives as a whole.

    Since the $20/week ended up costing the government hundreds of billions and didn't really affect people's lives, it strengthens our ability to fight out growing deficit.

    We have concluded that $20/week is a reasonably small amount to not have much effect, so raising taxes just a tiny bit by that amount will result in hundreds of billions of dollars for the treasury to pay down the debt and shouldn't affect the lives of people that much. That's good.

    We definitely need to start controlling the debt and I am glad that we can bump our taxes up a bit to help pay for it. Even the conservatives agree that it isn't much.

    There may be hope after all.
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Only to the extent people notice an extra $20 in there wallet every week. That's the point to stimulate consumer spending.
    And that's the point of this poll. They're NOT noticing!
  7. #27  
    Taxes going down:
    20.00 on paycheck
    (funny how we pay taxes on a wage to the Feds when by the constitution they can only tax income. A wage is not an income and you will find an income not a wage listed on a an income statement.)
    less money coming to state.

    Taxes going up:
    School by % (county and state)
    Fuel (state and fed)
    Travel fees (county, state and federal)
    Air taxes (cell phone bill taxes - all)
    There are many more but it just ticks me off to much that no matter what those with open eyes say the blind will be blind.

    If my taxes go up by 4000 and my tax credit is 1120 it would equal a net loos of 2880. I guess I can see how that stimulates the economy.
    I for one think that a person can not get taxes back that equals more then put in. And NO one should get ANY money from the government if they don't pay.
    Last edited by Finally Pre; 02/14/2010 at 07:19 PM.
  8. #28  
    And one more thing. Look here on how it is stimulating the job market.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    And that's the point of this poll. They're NOT noticing!
    The goal was to stimulate spending. As I've already pointed out in polling co-workers when it started, they were not aware of the extra $ or that it was the result of a payroll tax break, but it was in their pockets and thus more likely to be spent, stimulating the economy. This Admin is more focused on doing what's effective instead of political points.
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #30  
    Hello Everyone,

    It's interesting--I heard a lot of democrats decrying the Stimulus Checks from the Bush years. Now, some alteration in withholding however is a great idea? hypocrisy. One major issue is that our current situation isn't likely solved by a little bump, whereas a less serious problem might have been.

    For the Record, the Bush plans were much too timid to have a great positive effect, but if people get to keep more of their own money...well, that's generally a good thing.

    I've read that in fact--these are not tax cuts--simply a shifting of money, ultimately paid anyway instead of a true cut. I have not ever gotten a straight answer on that, but if that is the case, then we AREN'T actually getting a tax cut, which would make this thread...well, a huge joke.

    As I said--I'm really not clear on what this supposed cut really is or isn't. If it is an actual cut...great, I'll cheer the Obama administration. If it is just a shell game, then they are shameless liars.

    KAM
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCarnley View Post
    I am pleasantly surprised by the replies in this thread.

    The conservatives in the thread have stated and reinforced that $20 a week isn't very much money and doesn't affect their lives much at all. Certainly doesn't mean much to their lives as a whole.

    Since the $20/week ended up costing the government hundreds of billions and didn't really affect people's lives, it strengthens our ability to fight out growing deficit.

    We have concluded that $20/week is a reasonably small amount to not have much effect, so raising taxes just a tiny bit by that amount will result in hundreds of billions of dollars for the treasury to pay down the debt and shouldn't affect the lives of people that much. That's good.

    We definitely need to start controlling the debt and I am glad that we can bump our taxes up a bit to help pay for it. Even the conservatives agree that it isn't much.

    There may be hope after all.
    Your logic is very flawed. Consider this analogy. You are in a runaway truck with a lack of brakes, and you get a 2% improvement in braking power. Is your problem solved? Or will you still end up crashing?
    Now, what about a 2% reduction in brakes? What would that do? Just make things that much worse.
    Bottom line...in every case, your problem isn't solved.

    Or another one--you've got someone bleeding to death, and you put a band-aid on the wound...they are still bleeding to death. Your proposed solution...give them another small cut.

    $20 a week isn't likely to have a very large stimulative effect in the midst of a very serious problem. Turning around and saying "well, then I suppose it is ok to TAKE $20 a week is ok," is just nonsense.

    You are comically trying to argue that it is ok to do just a little more harm.

    KAM
  12. #32  
    I will use this example since many of us see this tax in writing every year.
    It's nothing different than here in NY State where we got a few years back a school tax reduction if you filled out paperwork for the "Star" program. That same year the school taxes went up for both appraisal value and a school tax percent. Also that same first year we paid 1.5% more than the past year.
    Now if you get 20.00 less taken out of your check and other county, state and federal taxes go up and/or are created than where is the net gain for us. If there is someone out there that can explain that, then please do.

    As far as the op's point. What I am saying is that the 20.00 does not do anything. It's just an insult to the intelligence of all of us. And if you believe that anyone should have taken notice and thinks it helps than I guess it did work for you and the politicians in gaining your vote.
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    The goal was to stimulate spending. As I've already pointed out in polling co-workers when it started, they were not aware of the extra $ or that it was the result of a payroll tax break, but it was in their pockets and thus more likely to be spent, stimulating the economy. This Admin is more focused on doing what's effective instead of political points.
    I don't know about the scientific nature of your poll but I do think that most people would recognize a $20 increase in their pay check.
  14. #34  
    The actual amount you can expect varies. It’s the equivalent of 6.2 percent of your earned income for the year, up to a total of $400 per person. You can qualify for up $800 if you’re married — even if only you (or only your spouse) is employed. Your annual income can also affect the credit — taxpayers passing a certain income do not receive it. If you are single, the credit phases out between $75,000 and $95,000. If you are married, it phases out between $150,000 and $190,000.

    From this can ANYONE show me 20.00 in a check?

    400.00/52=7.69
    400/26=15.38
    Now if only one person is working and married.
    800/52=15.38 divided by 2 (for the married couple) = 7.69 per person
    800/26=30.76 divided by 2 (for the married couple) = 15.38 per person
    Last edited by Finally Pre; 02/14/2010 at 09:35 PM.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I don't know about the scientific nature of your poll but I do think that most people would recognize a $20 increase in their pay check.
    Well, it was obviously not scientific but of the handful of people I asked they either had no noticed a couple of months into the tax break or did not know the small bump was due to President Obama's tax break.

    And I would suspect that was the general population's experience. Thus the result of that poll.

    But again, I would point out the goal of the Administration was not to make political points from a small tax decrease but rather to stimulate the economy. It appears consumer spending is moving in a positive direction and of course how could be attributed to this payroll tax break is certainly debatable.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    The actual amount you can expect varies. It’s the equivalent of 6.2 percent of your earned income for the year, up to a total of $400 per person. You can qualify for up $800 if you’re married — even if only you (or only your spouse) is employed. Your annual income can also affect the credit — taxpayers passing a certain income do not receive it. If you are single, the credit phases out between $75,000 and $95,000. If you are married, it phases out between $150,000 and $190,000.

    From this can ANYONE show me 20.00 a check?
    I wish I could but I'm not eligible. The only direction my tax rate went this year is up thanks to our Democrat-dominated, union-controlled legislature.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I wish I could but I'm not eligible. The only direction my tax rate went this year is up thanks to our Democrat-dominated, union-controlled legislature.
    +1
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Well, it was obviously not scientific but of the handful of people I asked they either had no noticed a couple of months into the tax break or did not know the small bump was due to President Obama's tax break.

    And I would suspect that was the general population's experience. Thus the result of that poll.

    But again, I would point out the goal of the Administration was not to make political points from a small tax decrease but rather to stimulate the economy. It appears consumer spending is moving in a positive direction and of course how could be attributed to this payroll tax break is certainly debatable.
    Can you show me the positive direction form this?
  19. #39  
    The voters must beware of how ALL politicians play on words, the fact is Obama DID NOT cut taxes, but as a poster stated gave a 1 time credit of $400 max (this he called a tax cut for 95% of Americans, same as a child tax credit) that is to be credited to your check. Divide $400 by 12 and you get $33 a month, and yes since its coming through payrole, this means it is apart of income which is taxed.

    In federal govt terms; a true tax cut/hike deals with the various income tax brackets, not a credit, which is really a giveaway for which many didnt earn....some folks dont have kids, etc. Jan 2011, the Bush tax cuts of 2001/2003 are set to expire since dems have stated they WILL NOT reinstate them.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by RoverNole View Post
    The voters must beware of how ALL politicians play on words, the fact is Obama DID NOT cut taxes, but as a poster stated gave a 1 time credit of $400 max (this he called a tax cut for 95% of Americans, same as a child tax credit) that is to be credited to your check. Divide $400 by 12 and you get $33 a month, and yes since its coming through payrole, this means it is apart of income which is taxed.

    In federal govt terms; a true tax cut/hike deals with the various income tax brackets, not a credit, which is really a giveaway for which many didnt earn....some folks dont have kids, etc. Jan 2011, the Bush tax cuts of 2001/2003 are set to expire since dems have stated they WILL NOT reinstate them.
    Nice post but as you said watch the play on words. The tax credit may be income which is taxable by federal and most state laws. The "payroll" is a wage and is not taxable by federal law, only most state laws. So not only are they legally taxing the credit but they are stealing your wages.

    Oh and I said laws. They are not. They are written in our federal and state constitutions. There is nowhere in the IRS code that says you have to pay taxes on your wages. If you read the code we tax ourselves voluntarily.

    So why should anyone who does take notice of the (as the op said) 20.00 not be ticked off?
    Last edited by Finally Pre; 02/14/2010 at 10:18 PM.
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions