Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 110
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    snark much?
    Not TOO much. I'll ask you to note that I chose to NOT go with the snarkier response here.

    KAM
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    If I remember correctly, Bush Sr. came into and left office with recessions...
    I don't think you do remember correctly, in fact I think you are wrong on both accounts. It didn't begin until about 1.5 years into his Presidency and ended almost 2 before he left office.

    List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Perhaps you are remembering the political Propaganda used the hammer the First President Bush instead.

    KAM
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Not TOO much. I'll ask you to note that I chose to NOT go with the snarkier response here.

    KAM
    might as well
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    might as well
    So, should I create a new thread to do that then--you know to follow tradition?

    There--you wanted it, you got it.

    KAM
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, should I create a new thread to do that then--you know to follow tradition?

    There--you wanted it, you got it.

    KAM
    Afraid I'm a bit slow. You're gonna have to explain that one.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Afraid I'm a bit slow. You're gonna have to explain that one.
    Nah--Snark has a limited shelf life--it works or it doesn't.

    KAM
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Nah--Snark has a limited shelf life--it works or it doesn't.

    KAM
    Guess it didn't work.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Guess it didn't work.
    I'll try to be less subtle next time.

    So...can you help me find my answer? Can you point me to a source that explains exactly what this 'tax cut' is and how it works, because I'm having a heck of a time finding anything other than biased claims from either side.

    I'd really like to find out who is right and who is wrong.

    KAM
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I'll try to be less subtle next time.

    So...can you help me find my answer? Can you point me to a source that explains exactly what this 'tax cut' is and how it works, because I'm having a heck of a time finding anything other than biased claims from either side.

    I'd really like to find out who is right and who is wrong.

    KAM
    About.com IRS Revises Payroll Withholding for New Tax Credit
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #90  
    Interesting. Thanks for the link daThomas. One thing made me curious. At the end of the article he writes:
    However I already foresee problems with withholding adjustments being made across the board. Some individuals won't qualify for the full credit, and some won't qualify for the credit at all. People working two jobs, dependents who work, and retirees who are still working may need to have additional taxes taken out of their paychecks to offset the lower payroll withholding rates.
    This kind of threw me. If all they are doing is lowering the withholding, what does that do to their taxable amount come tax time. I could lower my own payroll withholding by changing the number of dependants I claim.

    With this adjustment, how do I know if I'm qualified for the whole reduction, or just a partial?

    And finally, I guess $10 a week less withholding is better than a sharp stick in the eye, but come on.... how much spending stimulous do they think this will generate?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I'll try to be less subtle next time.

    So...can you help me find my answer? Can you point me to a source that explains exactly what this 'tax cut' is and how it works, because I'm having a heck of a time finding anything other than biased claims from either side.

    I'd really like to find out who is right and who is wrong.

    KAM
    Here is the official IRS page on the issue: Making Work Pay Questions and Answers: General Issues

    It should answer your questions. The information given to me by my accountant isn't relevant for everyone.
  12. mcurrens's Avatar
    Posts
    38 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post

    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.
    The Goal may have been to stimulate the economy, but the result is still a failing economy, one that will get much much worse as continued stimulus spending (aka pork for no jobs) drives the whole nation into bankrupcy.

    I'd would rather have a $300 check...
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    And finally, I guess $10 a week less withholding is better than a sharp stick in the eye, but come on.... how much spending stimulous (sic) do they think this will generate?
    I will reiterate this yet AGAIN. In looking back at the Bush administrations stimulus check, the larger onetime payment was more likely than not to be put into a savings account or applied to a credit card debt (and again, these are not bad things) as opposed to being used on consumption to help the economy.

    Therefore President Obama's Administration decided smaller payments over time would be more likely to be spent, over time. It also more money over the year than the Bush 2008 economic stimulus check which averaged $300/person.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by mcurrens View Post
    The Goal may have been to stimulate the economy, but the result is still a failing economy, one that will get much much worse as continued stimulus spending (aka pork for no jobs) drives the whole nation into bankrupcy.

    I'd would rather have a $300 check...
    Based on math in my part of the universe I think $10/week is greater than $300/year.

    And let's carefully celebrate the fact that consumer sales were up last month.
  15. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I will reiterate this yet AGAIN. In looking back at the Bush administrations stimulus check, the larger onetime payment was more likely than not to be put into a savings account or applied to a credit card debt (and again, these are not bad things) as opposed to being used on consumption to help the economy.

    Therefore President Obama's Administration decided smaller payments over time would be more likely to be spent, over time. It also more money over the year than the Bush 2008 economic stimulus check which averaged $300/person.
    I bought an aeration system for the pond with my Bush check. Obama's tax credit just means $800 less tax I'm paying in April. Which did more to stimulate the economy? Don't get me wrong...I'll take whatever I can get...but I don't plan on doing anything special with $800 that I'm NOT paying the government.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    I bought an aeration system for the pond with my Bush check. Obama's tax credit just means $800 less tax I'm paying in April. Which did more to stimulate the economy? Don't get me wrong...I'll take whatever I can get...but I don't plan on doing anything special with $800 that I'm NOT paying the government.
    okee-dokee.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Just nay-saying is not going to improve the situation. Race to the Top is certainly a plan to reward good teachers and get rid of bad ones as well as reward those schools that perform.
    It would be interesting to see how the NEA embraces the "get rid of bad ones" part.

    And that's exactly what the payroll tax break did for consumers and the administration is currently trying to funnel TARP repayment money into capital for small business loans. You act is if the administration is not doing anything which a falsehood.
    It is doing something, but is it really doing something that is effective for job creation? Most of the money hasn't been spent yet and won't be for a while (IIRC, some of the project funding lasts well beyond 2014). Many of the plans being considered for Stimulus#2 should have been included in the first one. Instead it was if the House & Senate Democrats came up with a wish list of projects that they couldn't get in during the last budget process and that's what they threw in after shoring up state entitlement programs.

    ABC and Edmunds were criticized on their reporting of the effectiveness of the money spent on construction projects and the cash for clunkers program, respectively. Unfortunately, there is a shoot the messenger mentality if someone points out that money hasn't done much good, especially if it goes to segments of the economy that aren't hurting. Before any of the legislation was passed, many economists pointed out that more government spending didn't help Japan when it was going through its financial crisis in the 1990s and that advice was ignored.
  18. #98  
    So lets see. In the end my wife and I have to pay it back. To much money - so they say. But if I hire a new person I will get a credit next year and I do not have to pay S.S. taxes for the new hire. It was reported 2 weeks ago that there are now more people taking S.S. then are putting in. I don't get it. S.S. is loosing money and I get a break with the new hire so the SS fund drops faster. WAIT!!! I do get it... It is just like the credit of getting more money in your paycheck. Yep that works. NOT. GET THESE FOOLS OUT OF OFFICE! Forget about my grandkids. Yours and my kids and us are going to have nothing in very short time.

    daThomas - We have all been around you long enough to know you really don't believe this garbage you say. You only take the side that will create debate. Nice job I would have to say.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by hrminer92 View Post
    It would be interesting to see how the NEA embraces the "get rid of bad ones" part.
    Arne Duncan said (paraphrasing), "Tough! Suk it up! Either teach or find another career."
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by mcurrens View Post
    The Goal may have been to stimulate the economy, but the result is still a failing economy, one that will get much much worse as continued stimulus spending (aka pork for no jobs) drives the whole nation into bankrupcy.

    I'd would rather have a $300 check...
    Interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions