DrPainMD: Only suckers get tax refunds. Why would you want to give the government a no-interest loan when you can get a no-interest loan from the government? Yes, I'll be paying again this year, just like every year. Thanks for the no-interest loan.

I kinda like my county and would like to do whatever i can to help out...i'm not self centered like some

fusillade762: DrPainMD: You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?

I don't make enough to pay federal taxes. Try again.

Lol @ bragging about that...hah internet

tbhouston: fusillade762: DrPainMD: You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?

I don't make enough to pay federal taxes. Try again.

Lol @ bragging about that...hah internet

A proud member of the 47%.

BeesNuts:
Preposterous and shameful dodge! You are choosing to look at the dollar value related to the tax cuts/tax hikes to the country and individuals on an absolute basis. The possible tax increases/tax cuts are, relatively speaking, a higher percentage of income of the people affected than the government revenues as a whole. So while they may raise total income tax revenue by 4% for the treasury next year (assuming $80b increase on $2.5t in current revenues - very rough estimate), because they are only falling on the 2% top earners it would increase their taxes by a larger amount, say on average 10% (39.6% of income is 13% more than 35%, but adjusted downward because it wont affect the taxes paid on the 2%s first $250k in earn ...

Never took calculus, did you?

We're discussing the difference between a principle and a derivative here. And until you can stop talking about percentage increases and decreases you're going to miss the point. Abandoning $80b is massive. If I made 300k and my taxes were 35% above 250, I'd be paying 35%*50k = 17.5k At 40% we're talking 20k. that's an increase of 2.5k across 300k income or a net increase of 0.8% and has "little" effect on the individual or household.

$80b of revenue, by contrast, is 2.75% of our total yearly revenue.

since 2.75% is THREE TIMES BIGGER than 0.83%, one might very well be justified in calling the former MASSIVE and the latter LITTLE. You can disagree with the semantics, but the fact is that no matter how badly you wanted to make Carney out to be some spinster on par with those Bush employed over his tenure, he's not a "Lying POS" because of what he said there.

This isn't spin. This is farking simple.

You arbitrarily chose $300k as the individuals income to make your point. Sure, it would increase such a person's taxes by a small amount (actually, less than 0.83% because you omitted the taxes they'd pay on their first $250k in earnings). It would increase someone makeing $250k by zero percent! Why didn't you choose that person?

By mathematical definition, if total revenues increase by a certain percentage, and 98% of the taxpayers dont see any increase at all, the weighted average increase among the 2% who are affected has to be greater than the increase in total revenues.

If you look at someone making $1m, it would increase their taxes on income over $250k by $750k*(.396-.35)=$37,200. If they were paying $317k in total taxes before (assume 20% on the first 250k), their taxes went up by over 11%!

If you look at someone making $10m, their total taxes would go up from about $3.5m to $3.9m, a 'massive' 13% increase.

Did they teach you in any of your calculus classes which is greater, 13% or 2.75%?

This isn't difficult. I don't know if you are innumerate or merely blindly partisan, but you are wrong. Carney is full of shiat.

fusillade762: Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me

The resulting inflation caused by the Federal reserve conjuring money out of thin air to borrow to service the debt causes prices to rise.

So unless you post from a cave and live in the bush, hunting your food like Ted Nugent, enjoy that.

fusillade762: Debeo Summa Credo: tbhouston: fusillade762: DrPainMD: You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?

I don't make enough to pay federal taxes. Try again.

Lol @ bragging about that...hah internet

A proud member of the 47%.

Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me.

future debt means less money to give you more free stuff with?

fusillade762: o5iiawah: fusillade762: Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me

The resulting inflation caused by the Federal reserve conjuring money out of thin air to borrow to service the debt causes prices to rise.

So unless you post from a cave and live in the bush, hunting your food like Ted Nugent, enjoy that.

[img2.statista.com image 850x605]

Yeah, look at that inflation rate. It's CRAZY!

When you make inflation a component of housing and average it with treasury-level financial instruments, inflation is low. To the rest of us who buy stuff on a daily basis, prices are up with means our dollar is worth less. Money simply represents goods and services so when you increase the money supply, you simply make things more expensive.

I'm not a foreign bank buying notes from the treasury via electronic transaction, I'm buying gas, milk, eggs and paying rent.

Where it matters most, Food, Gas, Rent, Utilities, Education and healthcare, prices are up. that is inflation.

Debeo Summa Credo: You arbitrarily chose $300k as the individuals income to make your point. Sure, it would increase such a person's taxes by a small amount (actually, less than 0.83% because you omitted the taxes they'd pay on their first $250k in earnings). It would increase someone makeing $250k by zero percent! Why didn't you choose that person?

Ok. 500k then?

35% of 250k = 87.5k = 17.5% of total income
40% of 250k = 100k = 20% of total income.

2.5% effective tax rate increase.
Total 12.5k income tax hike.

That's "little"

80b? Still big. Massive, possibly.

**********************
If you look at someone making $1m, it would increase their taxes on income over $250k by $750k*(.396-.35)=$37,200. If they were paying $317k in total taxes before (assume 20% on the first 250k), their taxes went up by over 11%!

If you look at someone making $10m, their total taxes would go up from about $3.5m to $3.9m, a 'massive' 13% increase.

Let's look at a 1m earner, in raw, real, terms. Assuming every dollar of that is regular income. And ignoring all other taxes owed, and any loopholes. We will assume s/he is single.

In 2012, they'd have owed $326,759.60. 32.68% Effective Tax Rate

If their marginal rate goes up from 35 to 40%, they will owe $357,342.10. 35.73% Effective Tax Rate

Net Increase In Effective Tax Rate: 3.05%

You think this is spin. I think you're being disingenuous. The impact is small on the individual. Losing that revenue is... not small anymore.

You are trying to make Carney out to be a liar of this minutia of language. It's just not there, and even if it was, it doesn't farking matter. This entire conversation is a red herring, and I'm done with it. Carry on with your bad self.

fusillade762: o5iiawah: fusillade762: Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me

The resulting inflation caused by the Federal reserve conjuring money out of thin air to borrow to service the debt causes prices to rise.

So unless you post from a cave and live in the bush, hunting your food like Ted Nugent, enjoy that.

[img2.statista.com image 850x605]

Yeah, look at that inflation rate. It's CRAZY!

It is higher if you include the decrease in wages over the same period.

pxsteel: idsfa: Zandor: So there is a problem that all the people who voted because "they wanted to make everyone pay their fair share" suddenly realize that means that everyone actually has to pay something?

Define "their fair share" and we can discuss.

The only 'Fair' way to do it is a consumption tax. Exempt food and medical, 8% on everything else. $100 item $8, $500 item $40, $1M yacht $80,000.

In other words, drasticly shift the tax burden to those with a lower income.

Thanks, no.