Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 101 to 110 of 110
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    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.
    So, from this, an individual is eligible for $400 (not $20/week which would be $1040) or $800 for a family (still not $20/week). It doesn't sound from this like it is merely a shift in when you pay, but an actual "refund" if you will, or credit--as it literally is listed.

    What it isn't however is a tax "cut" as this is commonly used--which means a tax rate reduction. I guess one could argue that if you pay less tax, then you have a 'tax cut' in the absolute sense.

    I guess I will see pretty soon, when my taxes are done what sort of tax cut or tax increase I will end up with for 2009 (compared to 2008), but of course that is also highly dependent on other deductions, earnings, etc.

    KAM
  2. #102  
    Kam..Your post sums up a couple of my previous posts of how the media doesnt challenge the half truths/lies of politicians claims. When the federal govt speaks of tax cuts, it refers to the marginal tax brackets NOT 1 time giveaways or a so called tax credit (playing on the physcie of the voter).

    Tax cuts/$100,000yr = 35% bracket under Clinton vs 25% under Bush = a $10,000 per person tax cut. taxpayer now gets to keep $10,000 more of his/her OWN money...it NEVER makes it to the legalized mafia (feds). Tax hike would be the opposite, which we will get when the Bush tax cuts expire in Jan 2011, from 25% to 35%....this is a true example. Obama and democrats already stated they will allow Bush tax cuts to expire, going back to the original tax cuts under Bill Clinton if they dont reinstate them.

    Tax credit 95% of Americans $400(Obama)/stimulus check $300(Bush) - words designed to play on the mind....nothing more than a ONE time giveaway, and they are NOT a tax cuts by definition since they dont apply to marginal brackets of gross income. Remember every voter/American doesnt pay income taxes, and the higher wage earners pay waaaaaaaaay more of the federal income taxes in this country.

    2011 tax brackets will change from Bush marginal brackets back to Clinton marginal brackets

    Head of Household (GW Bush) 2010
    Marginal Tax Brackets
    Tax Rate Over But Not Over
    10.0% $0 $11,950
    15.0% $11,950 $45,550
    25.0% $45,550 $117,650
    28.0% $117,650 $190,550
    33.0% $190,550 $373,650
    35.0% $373,650 -

    Head of Household (Bill Clinton) 1993
    Marginal Tax Brackets
    Tax Rate Over But Not Over
    15.0% $0 $29,600
    28.0% $29,600 $76,400
    31.0% $76,400 $127,500
    36.0% $127,500 $250,000
    39.6% $250,000 -
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by RoverNole View Post
    Kam..Your post sums up a couple of my previous posts of how the media doesnt challenge the half truths/lies of politicians claims. When the federal govt speaks of tax cuts, it refers to the marginal tax brackets NOT 1 time giveaways or a so called tax credit (playing on the physcie of the voter).

    Tax cuts/$100,000yr = 35% bracket under Clinton vs 25% under Bush = a $10,000 per person tax cut. taxpayer now gets to keep $10,000 more of his/her OWN money...it NEVER makes it to the legalized mafia (feds). Tax hike would be the opposite, which we will get when the Bush tax cuts expire in Jan 2011, from 25% to 35%....this is a true example. Obama and democrats already stated they will allow Bush tax cuts to expire, going back to the original tax cuts under Bill Clinton if they dont reinstate them.

    Tax credit 95% of Americans $400(Obama)/stimulus check $300(Bush) - words designed to play on the mind....nothing more than a ONE time giveaway, and they are NOT a tax cuts by definition since they dont apply to marginal brackets of gross income. Remember every voter/American doesnt pay income taxes, and the higher wage earners pay waaaaaaaaay more of the federal income taxes in this country.

    2011 tax brackets will change from Bush marginal brackets back to Clinton marginal brackets.
    So, what this seems to say is that there is likely a good reason that someone might say that they haven't received a tax cut. Or at least there is a good reason why people might be confused about it.

    KAM
  4. #104  
    If Obama and democrats are serious about cutting taxes, here is a proposal (frame work originated from cong. Gohmart, TX in 2008/9). Tax holidays for 2 months from paying any federal taxes (I say 2yrs or minimum 18months).

    Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a member of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, proposes to use the $350 billion left of the $700 billion bank bailout to fund a two-month tax holiday that would put money in the pockets of American taxpayers.

    Gohmert’s tax holiday plan is elegant in its simplicity: every American taxpayer would pay no federal income or FICA taxes for the first two months of 2009. For the typical American family -- earning about $50,000 a year -- that would mean they would keep about $2000 that would otherwise be paid to the government.

    Gohmert’s plan doesn’t pay for Wall Street bonuses or let banks use bailout money to buy other banks or pay dividends. It doesn’t rely on bureaucrats to pay money out to the right people at the right time or try to stimulate the economy with token payments to people who don’t pay taxes.

    Most Americans pay about 25 percent of their income in federal income tax and another 7.25 percent in FICA (social security and Medicare taxes). Computing how much money Gohmert’s tax holiday would leave in your family’s checkbook is very simple.

    Take your monthly income (the gross amount shown on your pay stubs before tax and any other withholding) and multiply it by .66. That amount is roughly what Gohmert’s two-month tax holiday will leave in your pocket.
    Gohmert doesn’t plan to include corporations in the tax holiday. But, as he told me, if employees don’t have to pay FICA for two months, the employers’ portion of that would also be eliminated, giving corporations some relief of about $65 billion over the two months.

    Gohmert is preparing legislation to declare the tax holiday for January and February of 2009 and plans to introduce it as soon as Congress is back in session next week.

    Gohmert said, “The bailouts haven’t worked so far because, for one thing, Paulson created a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom and gloom in the stock market. When the Secretary of the Treasury announces, for two weeks, that we could have a depression worse than the 1930’s then, even though he spends the next six weeks saying ‘no, it’s not going to be that bad,’ he has already created schizophrenia within the stock market.”

    Gohmert’s plan is limited to individual taxpayers and doesn’t include a capital gains tax holiday. He told me that he’d like to do that too but -- given the current Congress -- it’s probably a bridge too far. He recognizes, too, that if we really want to bring jobs back from overseas, we’d lower corporate tax rates.

    Freeing individuals from two months of federal taxation would be a substantial benefit to families and the economy. “Those who can’t catch up on their mortgage get one-third of their money back each month and then they’ll be able to catch up on their mortgages. They’ll be able to refinance their mortgages, they’ll be able to buy stock that they can’t currently buy,” Gohmert said.

    He added, “Somebody earning $72,000 would get a couple of thousand dollars back a month if we allow them to get back both income tax and FICA.”

    “It would be extraordinary. New cars bought, stock purchased, new homes, new buildings being built.” Gohmert believes that his plan -- which would leave the spending decisions to individual taxpayers -- would be much more effective in reviving the economy than the centralized power given the Treasury Secretary because people “always do better with their own money than the government does.” He said, “It would be so much more valuable to the economy than having one person who’s been wrong on just about everything they’ve predicted or said having that much power.”

    Taxpayers/Americans must remember its NOT the federl govt money, they (dems/repub) TAKE it from us after making it MANDATORY by law after WWII. These taxes original purpose were to fund wars during war time, but the greed took over politicians and they said wooow, why not make this mandatory so we can keep alllll these revenue to do many things we want and here we are today a bloated MASSIVE federal govt thats out of control.

    Govt MUST cut spending like you and I have to do inorder to balance the budget and start paying off debt, again its NOT their money...the contract is b/w the employer to pay the employee for work done, the govt does NOTHING to earn 1 penny, just like the mafia didnt do when they would take the store owner in the back room and demand payment.
    Last edited by RoverNole; 02/17/2010 at 10:37 AM.
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by kam1138 View Post
    so, what this seems to say is that there is likely a good reason that someone might say that they haven't received a tax cut. Or at least there is a good reason why people might be confused about it.

    Kam
    bingo!! :d
  6. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, from this, an individual is eligible for $400 (not $20/week which would be $1040) or $800 for a family (still not $20/week). It doesn't sound from this like it is merely a shift in when you pay, but an actual "refund" if you will, or credit--as it literally is listed.

    What it isn't however is a tax "cut" as this is commonly used--which means a tax rate reduction. I guess one could argue that if you pay less tax, then you have a 'tax cut' in the absolute sense.

    I guess I will see pretty soon, when my taxes are done what sort of tax cut or tax increase I will end up with for 2009 (compared to 2008), but of course that is also highly dependent on other deductions, earnings, etc.

    KAM
    Don't forget, these are the MAXIMUM amounts....if you make too much or not enough, you aren't going to get this.
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    Don't forget, these are the MAXIMUM amounts....if you make too much or not enough, you aren't going to get this.
    Yes, so at a MAXIMUM this is $400 vs $300 under Bush. Now, anyone can feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but these rebates or whatever you want to call them are really of the same nature it seems.

    So, in a relatively minor recession an individual got up to $300, and that was panned and criticized, but in a major recession an individual gets up to $400, and that is a major benefit.

    From my standpoint any lowering of taxes in a Recession is going the right direction, but the scale doesn't seem to match here at all. The current problem is much larger than the need for a small bump in consumer spending, so it seems obvious to me that a much larger stimulus is needed--one that businesses can depend on.

    I am not saying this is bad, but I'm skeptical about how much stimulus this could provide. And of course, if our economic situation is based on persistent problems, the solution needs to be longer term (like actual lowering of tax rates).

    KAM
  8. mcurrens's Avatar
    Posts
    38 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    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.
    Are you celebrating the Trillions of Dollars BLOWN in the last 12 months two?

    What about the Trillions they plan to BLOW in the next 12 months?
  9. mcurrens's Avatar
    Posts
    38 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #109  

    The interesting part about that article is how they fail to explain the following:


    Unemployment Report: January 8, 2010 | Sense on Cents

    I. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
    August: 9.4%
    September: 9.7%
    October: 9.8%
    November: 10.2%…revised to 10.1%
    December: 10%
    – January Consensus Expectation: 10.0%
    - January Actual: 10.0%
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by mcurrens View Post
    The interesting part about that article is how they fail to explain the following:


    Unemployment Report: January 8, 2010 | Sense on Cents

    I. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
    August: 9.4%
    September: 9.7%
    October: 9.8%
    November: 10.2%…revised to 10.1%
    December: 10%
    – January Consensus Expectation: 10.0%
    - January Actual: 10.0%
    Haven't you heard? It's a jobless recovery! Meaning, if you have a job, you might recover
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Posting Permissions