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.

(NewsChannel 5 Nashville) NewsFlash Obama says fiscal cliff deal is "emerging." OK HOPE IS COMING OUT   (newschannel5.com) divider line 993
    More: NewsFlash, obama  
•       •       •

4947 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 2:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-31 07:50:05 PM

Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Cheesus: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

Taxes is not a penalty. It's part of living in a civilized non-pit of horse poo. We (about 90% of America) have supported your tax breaks with, cuts to social programs, education, infrastructure (not to mention corporate welfare) for years. It's time to pay your due. Sorry, but as much as you guys think your supporting us, we are tired of supporting you.

...by taking less and less of your money.

For the record, paying taxes is not "taking" anything. As an American I pay up and now it's your turn. Sorry.

That's true. Exacting taxes by threat of incarceration is taking, though. If I sent a couple guys to your house with guns to cart you off to live in a concrete box because you didn't give me money, I'd be a bad guy... unless everybody else says they want your money, too, in which case I'm a very, very good guy. Should a government be established so that no man need fear another? "Hello no! Moar government!!!"

So you want to be part of this nation but you don't want to contribute to it? And you are crying that criminals "shouldn't be be threatened" (with prison) if they violate the law? How does that make a lick of sense?

It would make sense if you were actually reacting to what I've written instead of a hyperbolic caricaturization you imagined.



Your the one who mentioned "threats", "concrete boxes" and criminal activites --such as not paying your taxes--not me. Now own what you said.
 
2012-12-31 07:50:45 PM

johnnyrocket: Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security
CUT Medicare
CUT Unemployment benefits
CUT Food stamps

at the same time:

CUT taxes on billionaires
NOT CUT a dime out of military contract spending.



wow, you are brilliant.  you figured it all out.
now take that tin foil hat and put on on another layer.  you will be safer that way.
 
2012-12-31 07:51:51 PM

cchris_39: scubamage: There you go. My finances. I have nothing to hide.

Ok why not.

245 here. Basically you, 20 years from now.

3k house payment, titer up ancillary expenses associated with that.
2 kids in college. Financial aid? No, you're paying full freight. 50k a year there. And all of those wonderful education credits are completely phased out.
Most of your other deductions are phased out or down to the minimum allowed.
Another 50k in federal income taxes.
Another 12k in FICA and Medicare.
4 car payments.
Car insurance for 2 college age boys isn't cheap. Neither is life insurance for 50+ Mom & Dad.


How many years are you into your mortgage? Seems like a pretty hefty chunk to be paying unless you've rented most of the last 20 years and didn't put anything down when you finally decided to buy a house. Which seems odd unless you've very suddenly ended up with your current income after many years earning much much less.

And 4 cars? Are you buying new cars every 5 years and suck at negotiating trade ins? Seems like a self inflicted expense.
 
2012-12-31 07:53:29 PM

jayphat: Civil_War2_Time: Our government.

"LendingTree" is your bank account.

Sadly, yes this is exactly where the government is going, and a whole host of people feel that uping the rates of a certain demographic from 36% to 39% is going to magically solve it. Here's a news flash: taxing those same people at 100% wouldn't solve it either.

You want a government exactly the way it is? Either you double your taxes, or you cut about 40% of government spending in the next 5 years. Your choice.


My login was created from my despise of the governmental BS going on in 2004. So...no, to answer your initial question.
 
2012-12-31 07:54:39 PM
Crisis? What Crisis?

Just raise taxes on everyone and be done with it.
 
2012-12-31 07:55:19 PM
It's time for the bell-curve to curve-back, and we start holding these intransigents accountable. Own up. Pay  your fair share.
 
2012-12-31 07:56:41 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

RIP, Cliff
 
2012-12-31 07:57:09 PM

Indubitably: intransigents


Gesundheit.
 
2012-12-31 07:57:45 PM
This fiscal cliff thread became a financial counseling thread for Scumbarge. I love Fark.
 
2012-12-31 08:00:43 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: This fiscal cliff thread became a financial counseling thread for Scumbarge. I love Fark.


yeah, to hear someone who earns so much money whine that they may have to pay a little bit more in taxes is amusing.  Especially when he thinks he could lose his house.
 
2012-12-31 08:04:24 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
RIP, Cliff
 
2012-12-31 08:05:27 PM

HighOnCraic: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 200x134]
RIP, Cliff


CLIFF NO!
 
2012-12-31 08:06:18 PM

ACallForPeace: Wangiss: The KKK are Democrats. This has always been the case. It doesn't matter, really. And I'm sure you know the real racist intent of Republican hearts because you majick that way, but the KKK are and always have been Democrats.

Pretty sure you mean were, dumbass.
I don't know what's stupider, the Republican concept of economics which seems to have been produced by a group of infants with downs syndrome and various mental disorders (sorry for the comparison infants, those with downs syndrome and those with mental disorders) or their retarded game of "The Southern Strategy never happened, let me stop to make a racist, sexist, bigoted comment, enact racist, sexist, and bigoted legislation and then remind you that our opponents are the real racists for quoting us and telling you to pay attention to the policies we pass."


I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions. I only do facts and progressive minarchy.
 
2012-12-31 08:09:33 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: johnnyrocket: Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security
CUT Medicare
CUT Unemployment benefits
CUT Food stamps

at the same time:

CUT taxes on billionaires
NOT CUT a dime out of military contract spending.


wow, you are brilliant.  you figured it all out.
now take that tin foil hat and put on on another layer.  you will be safer that way.


You apparently have trouble understanding the English language, because these are all things that have been said to your farkin' face by the GOP.
 
2012-12-31 08:11:48 PM
shop.sportsworldcards.com

RIP, Cliff
 
2012-12-31 08:12:05 PM

scubamage: Msol: had98c: Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 7000

scubamage: Monthly takehome: 5219

I'm super confused. Your pre-tax income is (61000 + 70000) $131,000 yet your after-tax income is (5219*12) $62,628? How on earth is your tax rate 53%? The highest marginal tax rate isn't even that high!

Because we've got a ton of taxes, plus there are some pre-tax items that come out of my take-home, same with my fiance's.
I lose 4.5% to my 401k. I also lose 191$ for my railpass as it's paid pre-tax.
Then I lose 3.4% to Philadelphia work privilege tax (used to be over 5% until I moved out of the city)
Then federal, state, municiple (1%) and county (1%) taxes.
Now, I *DO* have extra taken out of each paycheck to ensure I never owe in at the federal level. Ever.

She loses federal, state, municiple and county tax, an additional 7% for the state pension fund, and then an additional 5% for the 403b.

If you can find a problem with the math, please let me know. I'd love to tell the HR folks they're doing something wrong and get some extra cash at the end of the day, I really would.


Ok, here's the numbers I came up with. These are on the very conservative side, only taking the standard deduction and no others. I used the calculator here: http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/federal-income-tax-calculator

You:
70, 000 - Income
11,255 - Federal tax taking the standard deduction after subtracting your 401k
4340 - Social Security 6.2%
1015 - Medicare 1.45%
3150 - 4.5% 401k to meet your employer match
2380 - 3.4% Philadelphia tax
2100 - 3% PA income tax
700 - 1% municipal tax
700 - 1% county tax
2291 - rail fee
-------------------
$42,069 yearly or $1618 bi-weekly, $3505 a month

Your Fiance:
61,000 - Income
9030 - Federal tax taking the standard deduction after subtracting her 403b
3782 - Social Security 6.2%
884.5 - Medicare 1.45%
4270 - 7% Pension
3050 - 5% 403b
1830 - 3% PA income tax
610 - 1% municipal tax
610 - 1% county tax
-------------------
$36,933.50 yearly or $1420 bi-weekly or $3077 monthly

This is very conservative and doesn't take into account any of the typical deductions such as mortgage interest, property taxes, state and local tax deductions etc. Your monthly take home should be over $6500/mo.
I'd compare with your paystub and see what's off. My guess is you're withholding on your w4 for your federal taxes. You should be getting a nice return from the IRS when you file.
 
2012-12-31 08:12:06 PM

vrax: tenpoundsofcheese: johnnyrocket: Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security
CUT Medicare
CUT Unemployment benefits
CUT Food stamps

at the same time:

CUT taxes on billionaires
NOT CUT a dime out of military contract spending.


wow, you are brilliant.  you figured it all out.
now take that tin foil hat and put on on another layer.  you will be safer that way.

You apparently have trouble understanding the English language, because these are all things that have been said to your farkin' face by the GOP.


when did the GOP say they wanted to cut taxes for billionaires?

as for the other items, you have no concept of context do you?
Now get 2 more layers of tin foil...the talking points from Ed Schultz are getting to you.
 
2012-12-31 08:14:29 PM

Mentat: Wangiss: Well, my father worked in a coal mine in Wattis, Utah after Jimmy Carter's Excellent Adventure, so he tried hard to build a better life for me. He only worked 40 hours, though, so I guess he's kind of an entitled prick.

You mean that 40 hour work week mandated by the government?  The one that comes with disability benefits in the event that your father had been injured on the job?  And OSHA regulations that worked to keep him from getting injured in the first place?


Yes. Are you feeling alright?
 
2012-12-31 08:16:15 PM

Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Cheesus: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

Taxes is not a penalty. It's part of living in a civilized non-pit of horse poo. We (about 90% of America) have supported your tax breaks with, cuts to social programs, education, infrastructure (not to mention corporate welfare) for years. It's time to pay your due. Sorry, but as much as you guys think your supporting us, we are tired of supporting you.

...by taking less and less of your money.

For the record, paying taxes is not "taking" anything. As an American I pay up and now it's your turn. Sorry.

That's true. Exacting taxes by threat of incarceration is taking, though. If I sent a couple guys to your house with guns to cart you off to live in a concrete box because you didn't give me money, I'd be a bad guy... unless everybody else says they want your money, too, in which case I'm a very, very good guy. Should a government be established so that no man need fear another? "Hello no! Moar government!!!"

So you want to be part of this nation but you don't want to contribute to it? And you are crying that criminals "shouldn't be be threatened" (with prison) if they violate the law? How does that make a lick of sense?

It would make sense if you were actually reacting to what I've written instead of a hyperbolic caricaturization you imagined.


Your the one who mentioned "threats", "concrete boxes" and criminal activites --such as not paying your taxes--not me. Now own what you said.


People go to prison if they don't pay taxes.
 
2012-12-31 08:18:52 PM

johnnyrocket: Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security


0bama wants to cut Social Security.

Is he a secret Republican?
 
2012-12-31 08:20:03 PM

Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Cheesus: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: Wangiss: Orange-Pippin: lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.

Taxes is not a penalty. It's part of living in a civilized non-pit of horse poo. We (about 90% of America) have supported your tax breaks with, cuts to social programs, education, infrastructure (not to mention corporate welfare) for years. It's time to pay your due. Sorry, but as much as you guys think your supporting us, we are tired of supporting you.

...by taking less and less of your money.

For the record, paying taxes is not "taking" anything. As an American I pay up and now it's your turn. Sorry.

That's true. Exacting taxes by threat of incarceration is taking, though. If I sent a couple guys to your house with guns to cart you off to live in a concrete box because you didn't give me money, I'd be a bad guy... unless everybody else says they want your money, too, in which case I'm a very, very good guy. Should a government be established so that no man need fear another? "Hello no! Moar government!!!"

So you want to be part of this nation but you don't want to contribute to it? And you are crying that criminals "shouldn't be be threatened" (with prison) if they violate the law? How does that make a lick of sense?

It would make sense if you were actually reacting to what I've written instead of a hyperbolic caricaturization you imagined.


Your the one who mentioned "threats", "concrete boxes" and criminal activites --such as not paying your taxes--not me. Now own what you said.

People go to prison if they don't pay taxes.


Not if you are the Treasury Secretary or Charlie Rangel
 
2012-12-31 08:22:23 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: How many years are you into your mortgage?

And 4 cars? Are you buying new cars every 5 years and suck at negotiating trade ins? Seems like a self inflicted expense.


Conventional 30 year 4% fixed. Estimate taxes and insurance figure the present value, no mystery there.

Cars, eh..

I happen to be the sort who doesn't care about cars and would drive them until they fell apart. The wife not so much, so the lease curse was invoked there. You have to do something every three years now.

The boys I felt was a reasoned risk. Six year financing on a new car, they get their license as sophomore in high school, so buy new, one and done. Gets them through high school and college. They got next to lowest end models of reliable brands with extra air bags (for me) and a spoiler on the back for them (so it's cool).

I have not had a single repair bill on either of them and you do get the best and latest safety engineering at that price level, so parents (and future parents) out there, that's one strategy.
 
2012-12-31 08:23:04 PM
The irascible stupidity of rural America.We don't need Obama, we need another Sherman.
 
2012-12-31 08:23:27 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: vrax: tenpoundsofcheese: johnnyrocket: Is this becoming clear for everyone?? The Republicans want to:

CUT Social Security
CUT Medicare
CUT Unemployment benefits
CUT Food stamps

at the same time:

CUT taxes on billionaires
NOT CUT a dime out of military contract spending.


wow, you are brilliant.  you figured it all out.
now take that tin foil hat and put on on another layer.  you will be safer that way.

You apparently have trouble understanding the English language, because these are all things that have been said to your farkin' face by the GOP.

when did the GOP say they wanted to cut taxes for billionaires?

as for the other items, you have no concept of context do you?
Now get 2 more layers of tin foil...the talking points from Ed Schultz are getting to you.


That was one of Romney's debate platforms. He said it every chance he got. He believed cutting taxes on the rich would save America, and that abolishing all of the social safety net programs was the righteous thing to do because it made people lazy and evil.The other two have been said by the GOP many times as well. Every time cutting defense is brought up, the right goes insane.
 
2012-12-31 08:26:21 PM

Wangiss: ACallForPeace: Wangiss: The KKK are Democrats. This has always been the case. It doesn't matter, really. And I'm sure you know the real racist intent of Republican hearts because you majick that way, but the KKK are and always have been Democrats.

Pretty sure you mean were, dumbass.
I don't know what's stupider, the Republican concept of economics which seems to have been produced by a group of infants with downs syndrome and various mental disorders (sorry for the comparison infants, those with downs syndrome and those with mental disorders) or their retarded game of "The Southern Strategy never happened, let me stop to make a racist, sexist, bigoted comment, enact racist, sexist, and bigoted legislation and then remind you that our opponents are the real racists for quoting us and telling you to pay attention to the policies we pass."

I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions. I only do facts and progressive minarchy.


Here are the Republicans answering for their positions.

From wiki:

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[8] but merely popularized it.[9] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[2]

Following Bush's re-election, Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager and Chairman of the RNC, held several large meetings with African-American business, community, and religious leaders. In his speeches, he apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the past. When asked about the strategy of using race as an issue to build GOP dominance in the once-Democratic South, Mehlman replied, "Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

"All Americans owe liberalism a great debt for having fought so passionately to end segregation. The liberal commitment to ending segregation and the colonization of the Third World are liberalism's two great contributions to the 20th century. And they often did that in the face of conservative indifference or hostility."

--Newt Gingrich

Link

"Conservatives should feel some embarrassment and shame that we are outraged at instances of racism now that it is easy to be. Conservatives...were often at best MIA on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s. Liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race. And conservatives should probably admit that more often."

--Jonah Goldberg

Link
 
2012-12-31 08:26:37 PM

StopLurkListen: Somacandra: o5iiawah: News to some folks, but politicians have altered the tax code to promote certain behaviors among the population in exchange for 'vote for me, I gave you a tax cut" In any normal world, being married wouldn't be any benefit since every living breathing soul over 18 would have to pay taxes regardless of whether or not they swore their life to someone else. Each person benefits from the protections of the Federal government, thus each should pay. Or as Madison called it - the General Welfare.

Its more than that. Rather than mandating behaviors more beneficial to the 'General Welfare,' the U.S. has chosen to incentivize these behaviors. In the U.S. home ownership has traditionally built more stable communities than rentals. Same with marriage versus being single. Optimizing these behaviors means fewer police interventions and frankly, longer and healthier life spans (for men anyway.) Thus less burden for police and emergency medical intervention and so forth and so on. You want to live in a way that potentially hits all of us more in the pocketbook and quality of life? Fine, but you'll pay more for doing so. We can dispute the wisdom of using the tax code to strengthen the social welfare like this, but this is how the USA has historically chosen to do this.

Going kinda off-topic here (but what else is new, hello Fark) -- violent crime has dropped so far and so fast that it's impossible to ascribe it to any one factor. Did five times as many couples get married since 1991? Of course not. I agree with everything you said, though. The five-fold drop in violent crime is a welcome but puzzling development.

[www.motherjones.com image 388x277]


August 23, 1991 - The day the SNES was released in North America. Clearly, CLEARLY, video games reduce violence.
 
2012-12-31 08:28:09 PM

HighOnCraic: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x256]

RIP, Cliff


What?

No.

Please, no.

no.

*cries*
 
2012-12-31 08:29:16 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: cchris_39: scubamage: There you go. My finances. I have nothing to hide.

Ok why not.

245 here. Basically you, 20 years from now.

3k house payment, titer up ancillary expenses associated with that.
2 kids in college. Financial aid? No, you're paying full freight. 50k a year there. And all of those wonderful education credits are completely phased out.
Most of your other deductions are phased out or down to the minimum allowed.
Another 50k in federal income taxes.
Another 12k in FICA and Medicare.
4 car payments.
Car insurance for 2 college age boys isn't cheap. Neither is life insurance for 50+ Mom & Dad.


How many years are you into your mortgage? Seems like a pretty hefty chunk to be paying unless you've rented most of the last 20 years and didn't put anything down when you finally decided to buy a house. Which seems odd unless you've very suddenly ended up with your current income after many years earning much much less.

And 4 cars? Are you buying new cars every 5 years and suck at negotiating trade ins? Seems like a self inflicted expense.


1. No need what so ever for 4 car payments. Aside from "I want the newest and shiniest" which isn't a valid reason to buy anything, let alone something that costs about 20k for a low end one.
2. A good life lesson for your children would be "hey, since I'm paying 25k a year for each of you so you don't have to for the next 20 years of student loan payments, how about you get an 8 hr/week job and pay your 150 dollar a month car payment"?

Granted, I see nothing wrong with helping your kids out, but as a younger guy whose parents couldn't pay my way through school, I don't see it as being unreasonable for you to ask your kids to pay for the insurance on the cars you pay for. It seems like a good concession on their part. It's a lot better to have to pay the hundred and change for insurance for 4 years than the 400 or so that I currently pay on student loans and will pay for the next 20 years.
 
2012-12-31 08:30:43 PM

Wangiss: I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions.


From the National Review:

"The central question that emerges ... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes - the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."

"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct... It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."

" 'Integration' and 'Communization' are, after all, pretty closely synonymous. In light of what is happening today, the first may be little more than a euphemism for the second. It does not take many steps to get from the 'integrating' of facilities to the 'communizing' of facilities, if the impulse is there."

"Under the disintegrating effects of Brown v. Board of Education, the units of our society are forced into absolute dilemmas for which there is literally no solution within the traditional American structure."Violence and the threat of violence; base emotions; the cynical exploitation of members of both races by ruthless ideologues; the shameful spectacle of heavily armed troops patrolling the lawns and schoolyards of once tranquil towns and villages; the turgid dregs of hatred, envy, resentment, and sorrow - all these are part of the swelling harvest of Brown v. Board of Education."

Link
 
2012-12-31 08:31:06 PM
scubamage:


Now, I *DO* have extra taken out of each paycheck to ensure I never owe in at the federal level. Ever.

So....let me paraphrase this.

"I give a bunch of money to the federal government so that I don't have to give money to the federal government."

Let me ask this..do you all get big refunds at the end of the year?  If so.. keep reading.  IF not, have a wonderful new year.

You are moran.  You're giving the government an interest free loan, when that money would be FAR more productive in your own pocket.  You biatch and whine that you don't have enough cash, when handing boatloads over to the government that you don't need to.  I bet you get your refund back and do something pretty stupid with it, like an insipid vacation to a shiatty location that you don't need to go, or something equally as moronic.   Adjust your deductions so that you have the CORRECT ammount taken out of your check, so that you owe nothing.   The money in YOUR pocket will be better off than in uncle Sams.
 
2012-12-31 08:35:10 PM

sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx


Agreed
 
2012-12-31 08:35:19 PM

Decados: scubamage:


Now, I *DO* have extra taken out of each paycheck to ensure I never owe in at the federal level. Ever.

So....let me paraphrase this.

"I give a bunch of money to the federal government so that I don't have to give money to the federal government."

Let me ask this..do you all get big refunds at the end of the year?  If so.. keep reading.  IF not, have a wonderful new year.

You are moran.  You're giving the government an interest free loan, when that money would be FAR more productive in your own pocket.  You biatch and whine that you don't have enough cash, when handing boatloads over to the government that you don't need to.  I bet you get your refund back and do something pretty stupid with it, like an insipid vacation to a shiatty location that you don't need to go, or something equally as moronic.   Adjust your deductions so that you have the CORRECT ammount taken out of your check, so that you owe nothing.   The money in YOUR pocket will be better off than in uncle Sams.


This is good advice. Here's some other advice in that vein.

Even if you are concerned that you will end up owing the government, take the money that you would give to the government and put it into a bank account. Keep it until the end of the year when you do your taxes. Worst case scenario is that you end up owing the government (likely won't be the case) but you have the money put away to pay it anyway. More likely case is that you end up with at minimum a couple grand, likely a few grand in a bank account that you can do something useful with. Like paying off your heater that you're paying on, or putting in retirement. Really, just about anything is better than just blindly giving it to the government "just in case".
 
2012-12-31 08:36:32 PM

HighOnCraic: Wangiss: ACallForPeace: Wangiss: The KKK are Democrats. This has always been the case. It doesn't matter, really. And I'm sure you know the real racist intent of Republican hearts because you majick that way, but the KKK are and always have been Democrats.

Pretty sure you mean were, dumbass.
I don't know what's stupider, the Republican concept of economics which seems to have been produced by a group of infants with downs syndrome and various mental disorders (sorry for the comparison infants, those with downs syndrome and those with mental disorders) or their retarded game of "The Southern Strategy never happened, let me stop to make a racist, sexist, bigoted comment, enact racist, sexist, and bigoted legislation and then remind you that our opponents are the real racists for quoting us and telling you to pay attention to the policies we pass."

I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions. I only do facts and progressive minarchy.

Here are the Republicans answering for their positions.

From wiki:

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[8] but merely popularized it.[9] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[2]

Following Bush's re-election, Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager and Chairman of the RNC, held several large meetings with African-American business, community, and religious leaders. In his speeches, he apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the past. When asked about the strategy of using race as an issue to build GOP dominance in the once-Democratic South, Mehlman replied, "Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

"All Americans owe liberalism a great debt for having fought so passionately to end segregation. The liberal commitment to ending segregation and the colonization of the Third World are liberalism's two great contributions to the 20th century. And they often did that in the face of conservative indifference or hostility."

--Newt Gingrich

Link

"Conservatives should feel some embarrassment and shame that we are outraged at instances of racism now that it is easy to be. Conservatives...were often at best MIA on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s. Liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race. And conservatives should probably admit that more often."

--Jonah Goldberg

Link


Okay.
 
2012-12-31 08:36:55 PM

Wangiss: I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions.


More here, from the authors of the Southern Strategy:

Link
 
2012-12-31 08:38:24 PM

HighOnCraic: Wangiss: I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions.

More here, from the authors of the Southern Strategy:

Link


You have quite a bee in your bonnet.
 
2012-12-31 08:39:43 PM
www.willowfriend.com

RIP, Cliff
 
2012-12-31 08:40:00 PM

cchris_39: scubamage: There you go. My finances. I have nothing to hide.

Ok why not.

245 here. Basically you, 20 years from now.

3k house payment, titer up ancillary expenses associated with that.
2 kids in college. Financial aid? No, you're paying full freight. 50k a year there. And all of those wonderful education credits are completely phased out.
Most of your other deductions are phased out or down to the minimum allowed.
Another 50k in federal income taxes.
Another 12k in FICA and Medicare.
4 car payments.
Car insurance for 2 college age boys isn't cheap. Neither is life insurance for 50+ Mom & Dad.

Weddings are coming next (at least they aren't girls).

So is retirement.

It's a good living and I'm grateful for it, but you're not getting rich at this level.


You realize you live a life of luxury 98% of the country cant touch right? Did I just get trolled?
 
2012-12-31 08:42:58 PM

Wangiss: HighOnCraic: Wangiss: I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions.

More here, from the authors of the Southern Strategy:

Link

You have quite a bee in your bonnet.


I only do facts. :-)

/Did I say something that made you think that I was angry?
//I've been mostly goofing around with the "RIP, Cliff" meme in this thread.
///As far as I know, none of them are actually dead.
 
2012-12-31 08:44:09 PM

scubamage: Msol: had98c: Except right now my fiance earns around 61000, I earn around 7000

scubamage: Monthly takehome: 5219

I'm super confused. Your pre-tax income is (61000 + 70000) $131,000 yet your after-tax income is (5219*12) $62,628? How on earth is your tax rate 53%? The highest marginal tax rate isn't even that high!

Because we've got a ton of taxes, plus there are some pre-tax items that come out of my take-home, same with my fiance's.
I lose 4.5% to my 401k. I also lose 191$ for my railpass as it's paid pre-tax.
Then I lose 3.4% to Philadelphia work privilege tax (used to be over 5% until I moved out of the city)
Then federal, state, municiple (1%) and county (1%) taxes.
Now, I *DO* have extra taken out of each paycheck to ensure I never owe in at the federal level. Ever.

She loses federal, state, municiple and county tax, an additional 7% for the state pension fund, and then an additional 5% for the 403b.

If you can find a problem with the math, please let me know. I'd love to tell the HR folks they're doing something wrong and get some extra cash at the end of the day, I really would.


Seems like you might be missing health insurances in these numbers somewhere? Not sure it would make a significant difference, but it struck me as absent.
 
2012-12-31 08:51:06 PM

Shrugging Atlas: 400/450k cutoff now? I wonder how much nothing Dems got in return for that bullshiat.


^^ This x1000k ^^
 
2012-12-31 08:53:31 PM

Wangiss: HighOnCraic: Wangiss: I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions.

More here, from the authors of the Southern Strategy:

Link

You have quite a bee in your bonnet.


I apologize for the immense amount of citations that can be used to indicate how severely erroneous your original statement was. If I was really intent on going further, I would've typed a few paragraphs from Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative," since I'm actually carrying a copy in my bag. Instead, I'm going to start celebrating New Year's Eve. Have a good night!
 
2012-12-31 08:54:50 PM

GoldSpider: Waxing_Chewbacca: Tough to do but I'm listening.

Me too. I meant what I said; it would be tough to pull off! Imagine what a nightmare that would be for anyone involved with processing tax returns!


Don't individual states and counties all calculate "Percent Poverty Level" for their given area for things like "Food stamps", "housing" and other forms of assistance? (Washington state does anyway).

Just use those numbers, except instead of applying for gov't assistance, you're applying for your given tax bracket. This would account for cost of living being different in various areas and use a system that's already up and running doing that for another purpose, and wouldn't take much to fix it so it can do this too. (Cutting down on implementation costs.)

/honestly, seems quite simple.
 
2012-12-31 08:56:51 PM

ChuDogg: Personally I'm rooting for the fiscal cliff.


Agreed. Maybe if all of America gets a good hard look at what the gop wrought simply because they CANNOT STAND the idea of the filthy stinking rich having to pay their fair share, the prospects of a gop re-infection in 2014 will become less likely.
 
2012-12-31 08:57:27 PM

lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


No one asked you to be moderately successful.
 
2012-12-31 08:58:15 PM

HighOnCraic: Wangiss: HighOnCraic: Wangiss: I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions.

More here, from the authors of the Southern Strategy:

Link

You have quite a bee in your bonnet.

I only do facts. :-)

/Did I say something that made you think that I was angry?
//I've been mostly goofing around with the "RIP, Cliff" meme in this thread.
///As far as I know, none of them are actually dead.


I thought that expression simply meant that you think about one particular thing a lot. I don't mean to imply you are angry.
 
2012-12-31 09:00:23 PM

HighOnCraic: Wangiss: HighOnCraic: Wangiss: I'll let the Republicans answer for their positions.

More here, from the authors of the Southern Strategy:

Link

You have quite a bee in your bonnet.

I apologize for the immense amount of citations that can be used to indicate how severely erroneous your original statement was. If I was really intent on going further, I would've typed a few paragraphs from Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative," since I'm actually carrying a copy in my bag. Instead, I'm going to start celebrating New Year's Eve. Have a good night!


There was no error. I posted nothing about an absence of a Southern Strategy or racists on the right. Are you replying to someone else?
 
2012-12-31 09:01:20 PM

Evil High Priest: skullkrusher: KarmicDisaster: tax increase+spending cuts =  recession.

so simple yet soooooooooooooooo ignored

YAY, austerity! Austerity during a recession always works!


yep, terrible idea. Hey, let's try it anyway!
 
2012-12-31 09:02:37 PM

libranoelrose: rohar: skullkrusher: bartink: skullkrusher: Why not a deduction indexed to the cost of living? We can keep the brackets the same but give people greater (or lesser) breaks on what is taxable income based on the relative cost of their area.

How localized is that area? By state? City? Neighborhood? Do we give a rich person that blows their money on a nice house in a nice neighborhood a bigger tax break, instead of encouraging investment? And then cost of living becomes a political football, to be argued over.

As much as I'd like to stick it to those rural retards that call urbanites moochers for wanting more robust government, that doesn't seem like a workable solution to me.

it wouldn't be based on what you spend money on. Everyone gets a standard deduction of $5k and change. How is that fair? it's not and no one seems to give a shiat

Skullkrusher, when I tell my 5 year old daughter it's time for bed, you know what she says? "IT'S NOT FAIR!"

Good to see you're at least keeping up with her on your debate skills.

lol


just talking about "fair shares". Good enough for the President, good enough for rohar's daughter, good enough for me.
lol indeed
 
2012-12-31 09:05:19 PM

incendi: DamnYankees: In every place 100K is quite wealthy. That's the point.

Nah, it's relatively high income. You can have that income, be an idiot with your money, and never achieve wealthiness.


So taxing it would be doing you a favor, really...

StopLurkListen: Going kinda off-topic here (but what else is new, hello Fark) -- violent crime has dropped so far and so fast that it's impossible to ascribe it to any one factor. Did five times as many couples get married since 1991? Of course not. I agree with everything you said, though. The five-fold drop in violent crime is a welcome but puzzling development.


It is a little known fact that the vast majority of crime in LA was conducted by one particular girl, who mysteriously disappeared in late 1990 resulting in a dramatic decrease in said crime.
=Smidge=
 
2012-12-31 09:05:36 PM

jayphat: What in the fark is everyone worried about? Seriously.

Let me lop some zeros off the federal numbers and let you:

Federal Revenue: $21,700
Federal Spending: $38,200
Current Federal Debt: $142,710
All this "cliff" that everyone is talking about will result in these amount of cuts: $385

What a farking big media ploy to get you all worked up.


Shut up while the big kids talk
 
Displayed 50 of 993 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report