Seems like the administration would be reminding us all about the tax cuts we've experienced in regards to income taxes.

 

NYT poll shows that fewer than 10% of Americans realized such a cut had taken place.

 

Half thought they stayed the same.

1/3 thought they went up.

 

The President has said that it was the right way to do it economically (vs one lump sum rebate) but the wrong thing politically?

 

Thoughts?

If they stay lowered then I applaud him.

If they stay lowered then I applaud him.

 

I'm not sure I follow. If? Do you mean if they are lower now or do you mean if they stay lower in the future?

At $400 a year for a single person or $800 a year for a couple, it would be barely noticable in a paycheck. That may be why so few gave it any thought.

At $400 a year for a single person or $800 a year for a couple, it would be barely noticable in a paycheck. That may be why so few gave it any thought.

 

No question.

 

So was it the right strategy by the President?

 

I read that he figured $65 per month for a family might actually be put back into the economy vs a lump sump $700 or $800 check which might get deposited into a savings account.

 

Good move or bad move?

Neither one is that great of an idea. $65 a month just makes it a little easier to buy food or gas. The lump sum might help out with buying a frig or a washer or help pay a bill, but I do not think it will be a major point in turning around the economy. I just do not see either plan being all that great, as their both small potatoes. Although I'm all for any lowering of taxes, no matter the size.

It really didn't help Bush's or Obama's poll numbers or the economy. Maybe this shows that we need to keep the Bush tax cuts, maybe even expand them and most of all cut government spending.

Sure, give me $800 now so I don’t notice the $3,800 a year my taxes will increase when the Bush cuts lapse… and another $660 when the an inflation-adjusted cap is lifted on the payroll tax that we pay to support the Social Security system… and at least another $5,000 in capital gains increases when I sell a house I own in 2011… and who knows how much more when promised taxes on corporations (especially oil companies) simply get added into the price of their products we all buy… or the numerous increases bundled into the Health Care bill.

 

It’s like watching a bad magician, trying to get us to look at the distraction in his left hand so we don’t see what he’s really doing with his right hand.

 

At the very least, I’m looking at an extra $10K next year alone... and I’m small potatoes. This will be much more punitive on higher earners/investors… but hey, thanks for that $800 Barack! Way to live up to your promise that no earner making less than $250K a year will pay “one dime more in higher taxes” under your administration. :thumb:

 

Oh hey, and way to soak the rich, so they pull back their investments… which we all know is a great way to grow the economy and generate new jobs. Kudos dude… :thumb:

Sure, give me $800 now so I don’t notice the $3,800 a year my taxes will increase when the Bush cuts lapse… and another $660 when the an inflation-adjusted cap is lifted on the payroll tax that we pay to support the Social Security system… and at least another $5,000 in capital gains increases when I sell a house I own in 2011… and who knows how much more when promised taxes on corporations (especially oil companies) simply get added into the price of their products we all buy… or the numerous increases bundled into the Health Care bill.

 

It’s like watching a bad magician, trying to get us to look at the distraction in his left hand so we don’t see what he’s really doing with his right hand.

 

At the very least, I’m looking at an extra $10K next year alone... and I’m small potatoes. This will be much more punitive on higher earners/investors… but hey, thanks for that $800 Barack! Way to live up to your promise that no earner making less than $250K a year will pay “one dime more in higher taxes” under your administration. :thumb:

 

Oh hey, and way to soak the rich, so they pull back their investments… which we all know is a great way to grow the economy and generate new jobs. Kudos dude… :thumb:

 

I'm sure you agree that when he implemented these small tax cuts that the plan was to keep the Bush cuts for a large majority of the people, right? Or are you that cynical that you truly believe he lied about his plans for the "95%?"

 

I think you're being disingenuous if you are trying to say that only one President has ever lowered income taxes while having other costs/taxes rise. For example, NC has greatly increased their state income taxes due to revenue shortfalls. Is that on the President?

 

I would be curious to hear how you think your tax bill will go up $10k next year.

 

Lastly, I'd challenge you and everyone on both sides to show proper respect to the office of the President. "$800 Barack" seems disrespectful. The POTUS should be called President - not his first name. Doesn't matter if it's Truman, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Obama.

 

To do otherwise shows a lack of respect and says a lot about how we got to where we are today.

FB - found an article on the tax cuts that will be lost.

 

http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/managingyourmoney/archives/2010/09/expiring_bush_t.html

No question.

 

So was it the right strategy by the President?

 

I read that he figured $65 per month for a family might actually be put back into the economy vs a lump sump $700 or $800 check which might get deposited into a savings account.

 

Good move or bad move?

It was a great move for the economy, people will spend it thought the year like they would normal money. But like you said if they got it all in one sum they might pay of some debt (Not that it is a bad thing :lol:) or put it away for saving. Not that any of this will matter or help IMO but if it was to be done that was the way to do it.

I'm sure you agree that when he implemented these small tax cuts that the plan was to keep the Bush cuts for a large majority of the people, right? Or are you that cynical that you truly believe he lied about his plans for the "95%?"

 

I think you're being disingenuous if you are trying to say that only one President has ever lowered income taxes while having other costs/taxes rise. For example, NC has greatly increased their state income taxes due to revenue shortfalls. Is that on the President?

 

I would be curious to hear how you think your tax bill will go up $10k next year.

 

Lastly, I'd challenge you and everyone on both sides to show proper respect to the office of the President. "$800 Barack" seems disrespectful. The POTUS should be called President - not his first name. Doesn't matter if it's Truman, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Obama.

 

To do otherwise shows a lack of respect and says a lot about how we got to where we are today.

 

I think he meant "Thanks for that $800, Barack".

I think he meant "Thanks for that $800, Barack".

 

 

 

Never mind. I get what you were saying now.

I'm sure you agree that when he implemented these small tax cuts that the plan was to keep the Bush cuts for a large majority of the people, right? Or are you that cynical that you truly believe he lied about his plans for the "95%?"

Whether he deliberately lied, or was merely naïve, the result is the same. A significant percentage of our population was persuaded to vote for the image rather than the substance. Even now, some refuse to acknowledge that the dense cluster of trees we now see is in fact a forest.

 

I think you're being disingenuous if you are trying to say that only one President has ever lowered income taxes while having other costs/taxes rise.

I did not/do not make such an assertion. To introduce the actions of past presidents is an “ingenuous” attempt to deflect blame from the one president currently with the power to make things better or worse.

 

For example, NC has greatly increased their state income taxes due to revenue shortfalls. Is that on the President?

I never said one way or the other. The shortsighted actions of legislators elsewhere has little to do with the misguided agenda of the current POTUS.

 

I would be curious to hear how you think your tax bill will go up $10k next year.

I itemized it in very clear detail. How do you suggest that I further explain the obvious.

 

Lastly, I'd challenge you and everyone on both sides to show proper respect to the office of the President. "$800 Barack" seems disrespectful. The POTUS should be called President - not his first name. Doesn't matter if it's Truman, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Obama.

Wow…

 

I could bring up all the times GWB was referred to as GWB, or Shrub, or Dubya, or Bushie, or W, or Junior, or Baby Bush, or Bush II, or Bush Lite, or Incurious George, or a hundred other less flattering names, but like your argument above, that merely deflects from the main point. I have yet to refer to Mr. Obama as anything derogatory, merely his name or his initials. If that’s inadequate for you, so be it.

 

To do otherwise shows a lack of respect and says a lot about how we got to where we are today.

Yeah, it’s mostly the perceived disrespect you feel I have for the office of POTUS, and has nothing to do with the division fueled by Mr. Obama and his political cronies as they use differences in class, race and party affiliation to further their ambitions.

 

You’re pretty adept at prestidigitation yourself Clyde. :thumb:

If we have received a tax cut why am I not seeing it in my check?

 

My YTD federal withholdings are at 7.69%. My 2009 YTD for the same period of time was at 6.46%. I have made almost $6000 more this year versus last but that shouldn't matter on the percentage should it. Nothing else has changed.

Neither one is that great of an idea. $65 a month just makes it a little easier to buy food or gas. The lump sum might help out with buying a frig or a washer or help pay a bill, but I do not think it will be a major point in turning around the economy. I just do not see either plan being all that great, as their both small potatoes. Although I'm all for any lowering of taxes, no matter the size.

It really didn't help Bush's or Obama's poll numbers or the economy. Maybe this shows that we need to keep the Bush tax cuts, maybe even expand them and most of all cut government spending.

 

I would venture a guess that most families don't buy major appliances (such as a refrigerator or dishwasher) by paying cash. Many probably buy it on credit and/or enter into some type of payment plan & pay it off over a year or two. Wouldn't the additional $65 per month help with that?