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  
•       •       •

12724 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 05:14:35 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Even if the tax doesn't bring in a dime, I'd be happy just to axe the enforcement costs.

If it was legalized and taxed, there would still be enforcement costs.


what would there be to enforce? I could see government regulations, etc. but it would be nothing like what we have currently in terms of costs.
 
2012-11-13 05:15:55 PM

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?


We quit pulling on them when we found out last week Santa Clause is going to fix everything.
 
2012-11-13 05:22:16 PM

smitty04: dennysgod: Middle 20%, $38 a week. Not much of a cliff, more like an uneven step.

$1.00 per hour, that ain't too bad.


Add that to the 1.90 an hour for your Obamacare in 2014, and now we're starting to talk poor people n****r rich cash.
 
2012-11-13 05:25:29 PM

Smeggy Smurf: 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

That's a big 4.6% FARK YOU and everybody who supports this. I had to file bankruptcy last year (bullshiat reasons stemming from an ex-wife's debt). I don't have an extra 4.6% income anywhere. So to satisfy your own sense of whatever the hell you call your justification of theft I'm going from merely broke to poor. So fark you and my kids who will have to go without would give you a trio of fark you if I'd let them cuss.


To quote another Farklibtard on here:

"If you don't have enough money, you should have found a better job."
 
2012-11-13 05:59:00 PM

versgeek: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Even if the tax doesn't bring in a dime, I'd be happy just to axe the enforcement costs.

If it was legalized and taxed, there would still be enforcement costs.

what would there be to enforce? I could see government regulations, etc. but it would be nothing like what we have currently in terms of costs.


The taxing part. When there is money involved, especially money owed the government, then they make sure that the taxation is enforced.
 
2012-11-13 07:54:46 PM

SuperNinjaToad: meat0918: 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.

yeah but on the other end of the equation someone like Larry Ellison is going to be paying over $100K in additional taxes when he thought he was just going to pay only an additional $3500.

would you rather make Joe Schmoe upset or someone like Larry Ellison?


For a moment I thought you were asking if I'd rather pay Larry's tax bill.

If I made that much money, yes, yes, farking yes I'd pay 100K more in taxes if I made as much money as that man. I wouldn't even farking miss it.

But then my reading comprehension started to kick in a bit, and to answer your question, I'd stand by my statement I want to see it broken down by tax bracket. Upset both of them.
 
2012-11-13 08:20:09 PM

PunGent: 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.


Legalizing marijuana will most likely have close to a net zero effect on tax income in the US. And why is the answer never cutting Government spending in general? Why not just do across the board percentage decrease in spending so that our spending is less than our income?
 
2012-11-13 08:30:26 PM
As the owner/CEO/janitor of a small S-corp and subsidiary LLC*, this will not result in me paying more taxes.

In years where tax rates are low and I have some extra cash, I pay down debt. When rates are high, I make sure the company spends more before it gets to me. That means more new equipment, more contracted services, more real-estate (and associated debt), more business trips, trade shows, and business lunches. Either way, I receive a benefit (directly or indirectly) and pay a consistent level of taxes from year to year.

* S-corps, LLCs, & LLPs do not pay federal income tax. The tax liability "passes through" to the shareholder(s), in this case, me
 
2012-11-13 09:37:02 PM
Let's sum this up.

Bush and a Republican Congress pushed through a "temporary" tax cut.

The last time it was due to expire, both parties worked together to extend it. The excuse was that letting it expire would prevent the "job creators" from creating jobs.

We all know how that worked out.

This time it is due to expire again and both parties are using the excuse of the "fiscal cliff" to extend it again.

TFA is of course still hyping the ooga booga tax cuts for the rich extended or unemployment is going back up to ten percent!!!!11!
 
2012-11-13 09:40:57 PM

The Muthaship: Is Obama still going to lower the corporate tax rate?


Yes. The plan put forth by the President's bipartisan debt commission kills the major tax breaks important to the middle class (mortgage deduction, health insurance deduction), increases the retirement age, and uses the money saved to lower corporate taxes.
 
2012-11-13 09:54:20 PM

Tumunga: Smeggy Smurf: 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

That's a big 4.6% FARK YOU and everybody who supports this. I had to file bankruptcy last year (bullshiat reasons stemming from an ex-wife's debt). I don't have an extra 4.6% income anywhere. So to satisfy your own sense of whatever the hell you call your justification of theft I'm going from merely broke to poor. So fark you and my kids who will have to go without would give you a trio of fark you if I'd let them cuss.

To quote another Farklibtard on here:

"If you don't have enough money, you should have found a better job."


Sorry, but that's the objectivist screed. I'm surprised you aren't actually quoting yourself
 
2012-11-13 10:01:10 PM

Director_Mr: PunGent: 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.

Legalizing marijuana will most likely have close to a net zero effect on tax income in the US. And why is the answer never cutting Government spending in general? Why not just do across the board percentage decrease in spending so that our spending is less than our income?


Actually, during the debt crisis Obama offered $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, but for some reason, Republicans rejected his offer.

Hell, all the Republican candidates said they would reject $10 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases

Obama has consistently offered a balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases, but keeps getting blocked by Republicans.
 
2012-11-13 10:06:53 PM

Director_Mr: Legalizing marijuana will most likely have close to a net zero effect on tax income in the US.


Because locking people up in prison is much cheaper than having them pay taxes on marijuana?
 
2012-11-13 10:08:50 PM

meat0918: Obama has consistently offered a balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases, but keeps getting blocked by Republicans.


Obama once claimed that the Bush tax cuts offended his conscious and that they all had to go.

Remember when we came very close to balancing the budget before the Bush tax cuts went into effect?
 
2012-11-13 11:45:12 PM

neongoats: Tumunga: Smeggy Smurf: 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

That's a big 4.6% FARK YOU and everybody who supports this. I had to file bankruptcy last year (bullshiat reasons stemming from an ex-wife's debt). I don't have an extra 4.6% income anywhere. So to satisfy your own sense of whatever the hell you call your justification of theft I'm going from merely broke to poor. So fark you and my kids who will have to go without would give you a trio of fark you if I'd let them cuss.

To quote another Farklibtard on here:

"If you don't have enough money, you should have found a better job."

Sorry, but that's the objectivist screed. I'm surprised you aren't actually quoting yourself


I wish I were. I'd take my own advice, because I'm a broke sumbiatch.
 
2012-11-14 12:34:44 AM

Amos Quito: Tax laws are written by politicians.

Politicians are wholly owned by rich farks.

Who do you suppose tax laws would favor?


When I got to the point in my life where I could start investing, I discovered that tax laws were written by people who own stocks. When I bought a house, I found that tax laws were also written by homeowners.

If all I have to pay is $14K extra per year (to get to ground zero and then pay even more when we really start paying to resume maintenance of our country's infrastructure), I'm okay with it. Taxes are the cost of living in a civilization, and they've been unfair since the beginning of time. Additionally, tax money has been used inefficiently since the beginning of time. I'd rather give everyone opportunities in an actual civilization and separately try to address the indolent than to deny opportunities to all. I've certainly benefited from tax-subsidized education and infrastructure.
 
2012-11-14 08:04:45 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: PunGent: fireclown: PunGent: 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.


I'm not sure how to estimate how much a marijuana tax would bring in, but per the RJR site, federal excise taxes for cigarettes were 15B in 2010 and 2012. I'm going to estimate a quarter of that for weed, for 3.75B.

Even if the tax doesn't bring in a dime, I'd be happy just to axe the enforcement costs.

If it was legalized and taxed, there would still be enforcement costs.


Far less. Basically the same as regulating any other product.

You're not seriously claiming the regs would cost as much as the current War on Drugs, are you?
 
2012-11-14 08:11:46 AM

Director_Mr: PunGent: 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.

Legalizing marijuana will most likely have close to a net zero effect on tax income in the US. And why is the answer never cutting Government spending in general? Why not just do across the board percentage decrease in spending so that our spending is less than our income?


$9.5 billion dollars is REAL money, even in the federal budget.

http://www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/BeckettandHerbert.pdf

And before you quote contrary stats, beware of anything with the grimy pawprints of the private prison industry on it. Those corporations have a direct incentive to incarcerate young, healthy prisoners...which your casual marijuana user often is.

Ergo, their bottom line depends on massaging their data, gutless politicianns, and scared voters.
 
2012-11-14 01:26:55 PM

BullBearMS: meat0918: Obama has consistently offered a balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases, but keeps getting blocked by Republicans.

Obama once claimed that the Bush tax cuts offended his conscious and that they all had to go.

Remember when we came very close to balancing the budget before the Bush tax cuts went into effect?


Yes, and right now, the reality is we will slow growth just a bit if we allow them to lapse on the middle and lower classes.

After the economy is in a more robust recovery mode, I'm all for phasing resetting all the tax rates save the lowest rate. I still want to keep that lower bracket at 10%

When it was all said and done we'd have a marginal tax structure that resembled the following
10% 0-16K
15% 16K-68K
28% 68K-137K
31% 137K-210K
36% 210K-373K
39.6% over 373K
 
2012-11-14 04:09:38 PM

meat0918: BullBearMS: meat0918: Obama has consistently offered a balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases, but keeps getting blocked by Republicans.

Obama once claimed that the Bush tax cuts offended his conscious and that they all had to go.

Remember when we came very close to balancing the budget before the Bush tax cuts went into effect?

Yes, and right now, the reality is we will slow growth just a bit if we allow them to lapse on the middle and lower classes.

After the economy is in a more robust recovery mode, I'm all for phasing resetting all the tax rates save the lowest rate. I still want to keep that lower bracket at 10%

When it was all said and done we'd have a marginal tax structure that resembled the following
10% 0-16K
15% 16K-68K
28% 68K-137K
31% 137K-210K
36% 210K-373K
39.6% over 373K


I wouldn't have a problem with that, but that isn't what's on the menu.

The bipartisan consensus is that we need to raise the retirement age, fark over medicaid, and then kill the major deductions important to the working class. Meanwhile, we simultaneously lower the tax rate for the rich and for corporations.

It's almost as if the rich own both parties. Oh, wait. They do.
 
Displayed 20 of 170 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report