|
Post by johng on Feb 3, 2010 20:02:17 GMT -5
If I implied the Tea Partyers were not Boomers that was a mistake. What I was trying to imply was that after their spending orgy of the 90's and 00's, I was doubting the Boomers were ready change their ways and pay for their sins, Tea Parties or not. They just want no new taxes no matter what. Don't know cause I can only speak for myself and I was too wrapped up working 2 jobs to support my kids and find ways to improve their lives so they could grow up to get raped by the liberals in charge now.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 5, 2010 3:08:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 1, 2011 22:17:30 GMT -5
I think I will recycle this thread...I'm bumping it up first so I can find it when I'm ready.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 2, 2011 0:03:03 GMT -5
Ha-ha, Osama will never be old...
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 2, 2011 1:18:15 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arpaio-trouble-20110501,0,3084923.story "The 78-year-old Republican sheriff, who plans to run for his sixth term in 2012 if he doesn't run for the seat held by retiring U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, noted that his poll numbers remain strong." Here's another codger unable to bear the thought of giving up the limelight. Maybe it's time for him to retire to his ranch house, no doubt employing a Mexican housekeeper and gardener for upkeep.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 2, 2011 1:29:22 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arpaio-trouble-20110501,0,3084923.story "The 78-year-old Republican sheriff, who plans to run for his sixth term in 2012 if he doesn't run for the seat held by retiring U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, noted that his poll numbers remain strong." Here's another codger unable to bear the thought of giving up the limelight. Maybe it's time for him to retire to his ranch house, no doubt employing a Mexican housekeeper and gardener for upkeep. Another slam from a Los Angeles de Mexico City del norte reporter in bed with the Immigration Activists. Sheriff Joe has not been arrested for wrong doing and I am sure that there are judges and other law enforcement agencies who would do so in a heartbeat if he had crossed the line. A lot of talk but very little walk going on there! Yes, he is old but his mind is still sharp and he KNOWS that he is making a difference. That is what is important, making a difference. I think it would be a mistake for him to seek a political office to replace Kyl. He is just find where he is and is familiar with his surroundings.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 2, 2011 3:09:00 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arpaio-trouble-20110501,0,3084923.story "The 78-year-old Republican sheriff, who plans to run for his sixth term in 2012 if he doesn't run for the seat held by retiring U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, noted that his poll numbers remain strong." Here's another codger unable to bear the thought of giving up the limelight. Maybe it's time for him to retire to his ranch house, no doubt employing a Mexican housekeeper and gardener for upkeep. Another slam from a Los Angeles de Mexico City del norte reporter in bed with the Immigration Activists. Sheriff Joe has not been arrested for wrong doing and I am sure that there are judges and other law enforcement agencies who would do so in a heartbeat if he had crossed the line. A lot of talk but very little walk going on there! Yes, he is old but his mind is still sharp and he KNOWS that he is making a difference. That is what is important, making a difference. I think it would be a mistake for him to seek a political office to replace Kyl. He is just find where he is and is familiar with his surroundings. It brings to mind former California GOP Senator Hayakawa, who was elected at age 70 for the fame he got from the one act of pulling the plug on a loudspeaker at a leftist student rally while he was President of San Francisco State University. He proceeded to sleep through his term in the Senate and did not run again.
|
|
|
Post by dj on May 2, 2011 12:36:27 GMT -5
I share jg's sentiment about working hard so the kids would theoretically have it better than us. But the idea our kids are getting taxed worse than we were is not accurate, federally at least. (and the study about a year ago showed that across the entire spectrum of taxes we are generally all paying less of our total income in taxes than any time in the last 50 years).
Our effective federal tax rates have been drifting lower and lower since at least 1980. Currently the average taxpayer pays roughly 9% of his/her income every year in federal income tax.
Even if our rates stayed precisely the same, the effective rate would go down every year because every year the low threshold for each tax bracket goes up. Meaning, currently the top tax bracket starts at $379,000 or so, so you don't have any dollars taxed at the top rate until the first dollar over that threshold. Ten years ago it was closer to $260,000.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 2, 2011 22:32:41 GMT -5
I share jg's sentiment about working hard so the kids would theoretically have it better than us. But the idea our kids are getting taxed worse than we were is not accurate, federally at least. (and the study about a year ago showed that across the entire spectrum of taxes we are generally all paying less of our total income in taxes than any time in the last 50 years). Our effective federal tax rates have been drifting lower and lower since at least 1980. Currently the average taxpayer pays roughly 9% of his/her income every year in federal income tax. Even if our rates stayed precisely the same, the effective rate would go down every year because every year the low threshold for each tax bracket goes up. Meaning, currently the top tax bracket starts at $379,000 or so, so you don't have any dollars taxed at the top rate until the first dollar over that threshold. Ten years ago it was closer to $260,000. There you go again with the smoke and mirror approach. Yes, I won't argue much (if at all) about your statement about the federal income tax. But the issue was NO NEW TAXES! The federal income tax has been around a very long time and is hardly new. OK, there are occassional "adjustments" to the federal income tax. Now here is the catch, how many NEW TAXES are we paying that we did not have to pay in the ~1980's? Many were smoke and mirror taxes replacing the "reduced" federal income taxes that Congress has given us to make us think they did something great for us. Sneaky little magicians, aren't they! We pay a higher variety of taxes today than back then AND many of them have even increased their rates. OH.....but the federal income tax, the one most people recognize immediately, has been given some "relief" to garner some votes. But there are plenty of "other" NEW taxes to part you with your dollar!
|
|
|
Post by dj on May 3, 2011 2:05:02 GMT -5
I share jg's sentiment about working hard so the kids would theoretically have it better than us. But the idea our kids are getting taxed worse than we were is not accurate, federally at least. (and the study about a year ago showed that across the entire spectrum of taxes we are generally all paying less of our total income in taxes than any time in the last 50 years). Our effective federal tax rates have been drifting lower and lower since at least 1980. Currently the average taxpayer pays roughly 9% of his/her income every year in federal income tax. Even if our rates stayed precisely the same, the effective rate would go down every year because every year the low threshold for each tax bracket goes up. Meaning, currently the top tax bracket starts at $379,000 or so, so you don't have any dollars taxed at the top rate until the first dollar over that threshold. Ten years ago it was closer to $260,000. There you go again with the smoke and mirror approach. Yes, I won't argue much (if at all) about your statement about the federal income tax. But the issue was NO NEW TAXES! The federal income tax has been around a very long time and is hardly new. OK, there are occassional "adjustments" to the federal income tax. Now here is the catch, how many NEW TAXES are we paying that we did not have to pay in the ~1980's? Many were smoke and mirror taxes replacing the "reduced" federal income taxes that Congress has given us to make us think they did something great for us. Sneaky little magicians, aren't they! We pay a higher variety of taxes today than back then AND many of them have even increased their rates. OH.....but the federal income tax, the one most people recognize immediately, has been given some "relief" to garner some votes. But there are plenty of "other" NEW taxes to part you with your dollar! OK, I'm listening. What new taxes?
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 3, 2011 3:44:55 GMT -5
There you go again with the smoke and mirror approach. Yes, I won't argue much (if at all) about your statement about the federal income tax. But the issue was NO NEW TAXES! The federal income tax has been around a very long time and is hardly new. OK, there are occassional "adjustments" to the federal income tax. Now here is the catch, how many NEW TAXES are we paying that we did not have to pay in the ~1980's? Many were smoke and mirror taxes replacing the "reduced" federal income taxes that Congress has given us to make us think they did something great for us. Sneaky little magicians, aren't they! We pay a higher variety of taxes today than back then AND many of them have even increased their rates. OH.....but the federal income tax, the one most people recognize immediately, has been given some "relief" to garner some votes. But there are plenty of "other" NEW taxes to part you with your dollar! OK, I'm listening. What new taxes? Good one, there isn't enough space to write them all down although, I believe there are some posts that have listed a lot of them already. But lets try just a couple so that you can refute them. Fuel taxes are higher, communication taxes (some were non-existent), and there may very well soon be additional taxes on the sale of your home!
|
|
|
Post by animal on May 3, 2011 9:14:49 GMT -5
many cities imposed new fees on things, instead of raising "taxes"....
|
|
|
Post by dj on May 3, 2011 13:17:21 GMT -5
OK, I'm listening. What new taxes? Good one, there isn't enough space to write them all down although, I believe there are some posts that have listed a lot of them already. But lets try just a couple so that you can refute them. Fuel taxes are higher, communication taxes (some were non-existent), and there may very well soon be additional taxes on the sale of your home! You don't have room to list them?? When you start suggesting that so many new taxes have been added to EFFECTIVELY REPLACE the lowered Federal and State income taxes we used to be burdened with, you really ought to be able to bring those to the table. You can't bring them to the table, because there is no conglomeration of massive fees and taxes peppered throughout our society which could remotely come close to replacing the reductions we've seen over the past 2 decades in our income taxes, capital gains tax, and estate taxes, which are the vast majority of the tax burdens we have. I'll say it again - Federal AND State Income taxes are both lower now than they were 20 years ago. Capital Gains tax is lower than it was 20 years ago. Estate tax is lower than it was 20 years ago. You'll have to come up with a whole lot of $2.75 FCC surcharges on the phone bill to make up for all that. I think maybe my point is not clear enough. People for the last couple of years have been chanting the mantra that we are taxed too much, taxed to death, and the liberal tax&spenders are going to bury our kids. The fact is, right now in the United States of America we pay generally less in taxes as a percentage of our income than pretty much any time in the last 50 years. This is not just an opinion, it is easy researchable. This is simply an example of a major perception problem amongst the general public. A clear example, and kind of an amusing one, if general misperceptions have any amusement factor in them. I leave open on the table the invitation to prove that there are a host of other taxes and fees which replace the reductions in income and estate and capital gains taxes from the past 2 decades, and effectively raise the overall tax burden of today to something like it was 20 years ago. And by the way that real estate sales tax you mentioned is a myth. Well, it's a misunderstanding. There is a new fee being applied to a small part of gains on a home above its basis compared to income and so on, but it amounts to very small amounts of money because it only applies to some parts of some transactions. The urban legend that it's some sort of a flat 2% or 3% tax on the price of a home, is totally wrong and wholly inaccurate. Again, it is researchable and it has been clarified many times.
|
|
|
Post by dj on May 3, 2011 13:23:33 GMT -5
many cities imposed new fees on things, instead of raising "taxes".... Yes, I know we've seen a whole bunch of new fees and surcharges added to many of our services and utilities, etc. Per my discussion with T in CV, though, see that I totally reject the silly notion that those fees and surcharges have even remotely come to total the amount we've seen in our income tax reductions the last few decades and more. We simply don't have as big a tax burden as before. We don't. Sure we have all kinds of neaky little fees here and there, but that doesn't even come close. This stands in stark contrast to all the rallies and protests suggesting we are MORE burdened with taxes than before and getting worse. It's not true. And almost exclusively, those suggestions are pointed at the "liberal" tax fiends, like the current administration, which just adds that much more puzzlement to situation.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 3, 2011 18:49:29 GMT -5
And by the way that real estate sales tax you mentioned is a myth. Well, it's a misunderstanding. There is a new fee being applied to a small part of gains on a home above its basis compared to income and so on, but it amounts to very small amounts of money because it only applies to some parts of some transactions. The urban legend that it's some sort of a flat 2% or 3% tax on the price of a home, is totally wrong and wholly inaccurate. Again, it is researchable and it has been clarified many times. All I mentioned is "there may very well soon be additional taxes on the sale of your home!" I didn't mention how much or for whom. With what you stated, you confirmed that there may be fees (taxes, if you will). That removes any urban legend from my statement. You may address many others who state otherwise concerning those real estate fees, but what I stated is NOT urban legend! Of course, there you go again. Restate your parameter so that you can make another's message seem wrong when they aren't.
|
|