If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Jersey 101.5)   Now that I know exactly what the "fiscal cliff" will cost me personally, I'm suddenly much more interested   (nj1015.com) divider line 170
    More: Interesting, estate taxes, Tax Policy Center  
•       •       •

12736 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-13 10:20:15 AM
This country is in the tank, and everyone knows it!
 
2012-11-13 10:20:34 AM
What a "Physical" Cliff may look like..
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-13 10:21:14 AM
Got nothing....
 
2012-11-13 10:21:33 AM
No more than $505k. Got it.
 
2012-11-13 10:25:09 AM
I'm okay with this.
 
2012-11-13 10:25:45 AM

Let's get this out of the way right now since Republicans are going to the mat to block higher taxes on the wealthy:

Extending all expiring tax provisions other than the cut in the payroll tax and indexing the AMT for inflation- except for allowing the expiration of lower tax rates on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single taxpayers-would boost real GDP by about 1¼ percent by the end of 2013. That effect is nearly as large as the effect of making all of those changes in law and extending the lower tax rates on higher incomes as well (which CBO estimates to be a little less than 1½ percent)

Extending all of Bush's tax cuts = 1.5% growth in GDP
Extending rate cuts on income
 
2012-11-13 10:26:18 AM
The 47% have no problem with it, I suppose.
 
2012-11-13 10:26:25 AM
This will save us more money than closing a million planned parenthood's.
 
2012-11-13 10:27:20 AM
From my perspective, we need to let the fiscal cliff play out. Then again, I do bio-hazard clean up after suicides, so I might be biased.
 
2012-11-13 10:28:14 AM
Huh, some of my post disappeared:

Extending all of Bush's tax cuts = 1.5% growth in GDP
Extending rate cuts on income under $250K= 1.25% growth in GDP
 
2012-11-13 10:28:30 AM

Matthew Keene: This country is in the tank, and everyone knows it!


www.richgibson.com


No it isn't.
 
2012-11-13 10:29:23 AM
FTFA: "Top 1% ($506,210 and above) 120,537

Unless, of course, you're fiddling it so that you're not actually paying the tax rate you're supposed to, or for that matter, any at all.

/I'm looking at you, Mittens
 
2012-11-13 10:30:15 AM
Make your own tax cut.

Barter.

That is all.
 
2012-11-13 10:31:25 AM
Do it. The Bush tax-cut programs have been proven not to work. I'm very OK with going back to Clinton-era tax rates. The Repubs are again blowing their own weird brand of unreality:

The tax rate under Nixon was 70% for the highest bracket; you did not come under 39% until you made less than $28,000 as a couple or $14,000 individually. Here's some history:

Eisenhower 91%
Kennedy 91%
Johnson 70%
Nixon 70%
Ford 70%
Carter 70%
Reagan 28%
Bush, G.H.W. 31%
Clinton 39.6%
Bush, G.W. 35%

A whopping 4.6% raise. Fark the House for its fear and doom.

/do_it.jpg
 
2012-11-13 10:31:32 AM

HAMMERTOE: The 47% have no problem with it, I suppose.


I suppose you are too dumb to realize that the fiscal cliff DOES impact the working poor which pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes than I do.
 
2012-11-13 10:31:37 AM
Who is this 'Fiscal Cliff' and why does he have so much control of my taxes? Can't we just find him and kick his a$$ or something?
 
2012-11-13 10:32:05 AM
Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.
 
2012-11-13 10:32:23 AM
Is Obama still going to lower the corporate tax rate?
 
2012-11-13 10:35:20 AM
Upper Middle 20%er here. I'm ok with this. If I wanted to live in a third-world hell hole, I would expatriate. Since I don't, I'm willing to pay what we need to pay in order to keep this collective enterprise we call America on sound financial footing and still providing the protections, services, and opportunities that make this a pretty kick ass place to live.

The surreal degree of hypocrisy exhibited by you conservative aholes who constantly want something (a safe and decent country to live in) for nothing (no taxes) just boggles my farking mind.

Where's your farking bootstraps people?
 
2012-11-13 10:35:51 AM

sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.


Take all the bush tax custs away, we are still not even close to tackling the debt, and all we do is stall growth.
 
2012-11-13 10:36:20 AM
Let it happen, Captain
 
2012-11-13 10:36:28 AM
How did you find out exactly what it would cost you subby? I can see what it would cost the average person in my income quintile, but that's quite a bit different than exactly what it would cost me.
 
2012-11-13 10:36:37 AM
So $110K is the top of "upper middle class"? I'd better go wake up the slaves so they can carry me and my solid-gold Lamborghini to the country club.
 
2012-11-13 10:37:13 AM
I love the way that they bias the top quintile (108k and up). Having gone through my records in no way did I "gain" 14k of cashflow from the bush tax cuts being implemented. I remember being unimpressed with how much extra money I got in my paycheck each month - about $250 if I am doing my simple math correctly. Let's just say I felt about the same impact from the change in FICA the last two years. What whould have been much more useful is a "range" statement showing how it varies over each quintile. But then I'm interested in understanding, while TFA is interested in generating rage clicks.
 
2012-11-13 10:37:45 AM

madgonad: I suppose you are too dumb to realize that the fiscal cliff DOES impact the working poor which pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes than I do.


The amount that the "working poor" pay is totally negated by the Earned Income Credit, which only the "working poor" are typically able to take advantage of.
 
2012-11-13 10:37:49 AM
Higher taxes on income below $250,000=$279,000,000,000
Higher taxes on income above $250,000=$52,000,000,000

Tax on the middle class really adds up.
 
2012-11-13 10:37:59 AM

Prevailing Wind: Upper Middle 20%er here. I'm ok with this. If I wanted to live in a third-world hell hole, I would expatriate. Since I don't, I'm willing to pay what we need to pay in order to keep this collective enterprise we call America on sound financial footing and still providing the protections, services, and opportunities that make this a pretty kick ass place to live.

The surreal degree of hypocrisy exhibited by you conservative aholes who constantly want something (a safe and decent country to live in) for nothing (no taxes) just boggles my farking mind.

Where's your farking bootstraps people?


Successful people already pay almost all the taxes. What you want, is no more successful people. Nothing but envy and dumbassery. How stupid is it of you to imply conservatives don't want to pay any taxes? We just don't want to pay crippling taxes so you and yours get free stuff and sit around.
 
2012-11-13 10:38:37 AM

sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.


I'm not. Trim the spending. Government will spend more than it taxes in through taxation either way, so limit taxation and limit the amount of bullshiat money spent by the government.
 
2012-11-13 10:38:43 AM
I also don't think Americans want unemployment to go down.

No, seriously, the country is just fine with unemployment this high. We could drop unemployment to 2-3% if we all collectively decided to actually buy shiat made in this country.
 
2012-11-13 10:39:35 AM

Znuh: Do it. The Bush tax-cut programs have been proven not to work. I'm very OK with going back to Clinton-era tax rates. The Repubs are again blowing their own weird brand of unreality:

The tax rate under Nixon was 70% for the highest bracket; you did not come under 39% until you made less than $28,000 as a couple or $14,000 individually. Here's some history:

Eisenhower 91%
Kennedy 91%
Johnson 70%
Nixon 70%
Ford 70%
Carter 70%
Reagan 28%
Bush, G.H.W. 31%
Clinton 39.6%
Bush, G.W. 35%

A whopping 4.6% raise. Fark the House for its fear and doom.

/do_it.jpg



I say we impose a 100% tax on everyone and everything, and then create a caring, compassionate government bureaucracy that will fairly distribute to each according to his need.

It's the only reasonable solution.
 
2012-11-13 10:40:23 AM

sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.


If the fedgov confiscated every penny made over $250K, by everyone making over $250K, it runs the govt for about 93 days. The problem is spending (bleeding) not taxes (big enough bandaid).
 
2012-11-13 10:40:50 AM

Thunderpipes: sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.

Take all the bush tax custs away, we are still not even close to tackling the debt, and all we do is stall growth.


You mean 'borrow growth', which is perhaps the dumbest idea ever. Currently, about 7% of our GDP is borrowed, which means if we balanced the budget our GDP would shrink by AT LEAST that much.
 
2012-11-13 10:40:51 AM
I suppose it is now time to throw out my challenge. Any meaningful cuts will have to be significant, and painful. Instead of complaints and snark (our stock in trade, I know), what would we suggest as solutions? I'll start:

- Reduce defense spending by 3% across the board.
- Move the social security tax cap from 100K to 250K
- Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire
- Decrease the payback rate of SS by 2% for individuals with net worth of over 5M
 
2012-11-13 10:41:46 AM

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Top 1% ($506,210 and above) 120,537

Unless, of course, you're fiddling it so that you're not actually paying the tax rate you're supposed to, or for that matter, any at all.

/I'm looking at you, Mittens



Tax laws are written by politicians.

Politicians are wholly owned by rich farks.

Who do you suppose tax laws would favor?
 
2012-11-13 10:43:10 AM
I'm more concerned about the cuts in Pentagon spending. I mean, we're only spending the GDP of Switzerland every year on defense. If we reduce our spending to the level of the entire GDP of Saudi Arabia or Sweden, then the terrorists have won.
 
2012-11-13 10:43:36 AM

madgonad: Thunderpipes: sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.

Take all the bush tax custs away, we are still not even close to tackling the debt, and all we do is stall growth.

You mean 'borrow growth', which is perhaps the dumbest idea ever. Currently, about 7% of our GDP is borrowed, which means if we balanced the budget our GDP would shrink by AT LEAST that much.



The good news is that most of that is "borrowed" from the Federal Reserve", which means we're just procrastinating hyperinflation.
 
2012-11-13 10:43:38 AM

Thunderpipes: Take all the bush tax custs away, we are still not even close to tackling the debt, and all we do is stall growth.


So you're saying America was never prosperous until George W. Bush came along?

Or are you saying if we can't fix a problem 100% let's not do anything?

I guess you could just be saying "I'm a whiny partisan hack."
 
2012-11-13 10:43:52 AM

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Top 1% ($506,210 and above) 120,537

Unless, of course, you're fiddling it so that you're not actually paying the tax rate you're supposed to, or for that matter, any at all.

/I'm looking at you, Mittens


Don't like the tax laws? Then vote people in that will change them.
While Romney may have payed around a 15% tax rate, it was not illegal.

Get over it. He lost.
 
2012-11-13 10:44:08 AM
Middle 20%.

Let's do this.
 
2012-11-13 10:44:13 AM

TheStag: Who is this 'Fiscal Cliff' and why does he have so much control of my taxes? Can't we just find him and kick his a$$ or something?


img826.imageshack.us

Well, you see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it's the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
 
2012-11-13 10:45:50 AM

Nightsweat: I'm more concerned about the cuts in Pentagon spending. I mean, we're only spending the GDP of Switzerland every year on defense



The Swiss must be pissed!
 
2012-11-13 10:46:25 AM
toyotachinook.files.wordpress.com

OH NO!

... But really,
img115.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-13 10:46:36 AM

Amos Quito: I say we impose a 100% tax on everyone and everything, and then create a caring, compassionate government bureaucracy that will fairly distribute to each according to his need.

It's the only reasonable solution.


Soon you have no one working. What would be the point. Forced labor camps would be the only solution, it worked in the USSR.
 
2012-11-13 10:49:10 AM
Bullshiat. Here we go with a new media hype-blitz. There's no way my tax is going up $14,173 next year.

This is all just political theater, folks. They're gonna strike a back-room deal, the nasty details of which we will not know until it is too late.
 
2012-11-13 10:49:56 AM

fireclown: I suppose it is now time to throw out my challenge. Any meaningful cuts will have to be significant, and painful. Instead of complaints and snark (our stock in trade, I know), what would we suggest as solutions? I'll start:

- Reduce defense spending by 3% across the board.
- Move the social security tax cap from 100K to 250K
- Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire
- Decrease the payback rate of SS by 2% for individuals with net worth of over 5M


Solid start.

Legalize and tax marijuana, and we're golden.
 
2012-11-13 10:50:00 AM
Congress cannot not spend money. There is no reward for not spending money.

For the last 30 years, they have been unteathered from the reality of not spending more than you take in.

They put in all these limits and cliffs in an attempt to discipline themselves and then move them when they get there.

And Ryan is just as bad. He pretends to do something that, in reality, is doing nothing.
 
2012-11-13 10:52:55 AM
Some people knew about that before that article made FARK.

Some people knew all of that a long time ago.
 
2012-11-13 10:55:18 AM

JackieRabbit: Bullshiat. Here we go with a new media hype-blitz. There's no way my tax is going up $14,173 next year.

This is all just political theater, folks. They're gonna strike a back-room deal, the nasty details of which we will not know until it is too late.


The whole point of this information is that it is what happens if they don't strike a deal. They probably will make some kind of deal, but that has exactly zero effect on these numbers.
 
2012-11-13 10:57:35 AM
Middle 20%, $38 a week. Not much of a cliff, more like an uneven step.
 
2012-11-13 10:57:52 AM
I'd love if they said If you fall in this tax bracket this is how you'll be affected instead of saying "The average increase in your taxes is $3,500+, but the majority of people will pay much less than that."

It's bullshiat designed to do one thing, make Joe Schmo think his tax bill is gonna go up that full $3,500.
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report