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.

 

We have a progressive income tax, so yes, as your income goes up the percentage goes up.

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:

 

If your taxes go up next year, blame President Bush. He is the one that signed the law that will cause your taxes to go up. If you are upset that the social security maximum will go up, take it up with President Reagan. I believe he signed that law. The only way that income taxes will go up for incomes under $250,000 will be if the Republicans refuse to allow it to pass. You know that and I know that. I get it that you don't like this President, but your blind hatred should not make you lie about what he has done or what he proposes to do.

If your taxes go up next year, blame President Bush. He is the one that signed the law that will cause your taxes to go up. If you are upset that the social security maximum will go up, take it up with President Reagan. I believe he signed that law.

 

Please explain these laws?

Please explain these laws?

 

When the tax cuts were enacted during the last decade, the law included a provision that the taxes would go bback up in 2011. If nothing is done the taxes will go up next year under the provisions of the laws signed by President Bush. President Obama has proposed that the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 be made permanent. So far, Republicans have blocked that tax cut because they want the tax cuts to be made permanent for all income levels. I find it hard to believe that the Republicans will block tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans to preserve the tax cuts for the small number of high income earners, but we'll see. It is easy enough for a minority in the Senate to force taxes to go up since no action will result in taxes going up.

During the 80s there were changes to the social security withholding to preserve the financial viability of the program. One of the provisions of that law, signed by President Reagan was that the maximum wages subject to social security withholding would be ajusted each year to account for inflation. That has been the way it has worked for twenty-five years. President Obama has not proposed any change to that law, despite the attempts of some to blame him for it.

We have a progressive income tax, so yes, as your income goes up the percentage goes up.

 

The precentage goes up if you move into another bracket. I assure I did not. So the precentage should not have change if we truly got a tax cut.

If your taxes go up next year, blame President Bush. He is the one that signed the law that will cause your taxes to go up. If you are upset that the social security maximum will go up, take it up with President Reagan. I believe he signed that law. The only way that income taxes will go up for incomes under $250,000 will be if the Republicans refuse to allow it to pass. You know that and I know that.

What I know is Senator Barack Hussein Obama pledged the following multiple times on the campaign trail:

 

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

 

Regardless of how you choose to parse and attribute blame, the above pledge was and is a blatant lie. I find it hysterical that you blame Bush and Reagan when the Dems have dominant control over Congress and the Executive Branch. It is within their full power to extend or make these reductions permanent… whether a significant number of Republicans want to play ball or not.

 

Blaming Republicans for not falling into the lie of class envy is pitiful.

 

Beyond these matters, a tax on indoor tanning services and an additional tax on cigarettes began this year. It affects all income levels. As the Health Care Bill matures, people will have to pay a fine, levied through their income taxes, if they don't have health insurance. Again, this affects all income levels.

 

I get it that you don't like this President, but your blind hatred should not make you lie about what he has done or what he proposes to do.

Please don’t assume that I think or respond as you might.

 

You are correct that I do not like the policies and overall agenda of this president. Beyond that, I hold no malice whatsoever toward the man. To attribute “blind hatred” to me is absurd at best. I do not need to lie to expose the foolishness of BHO’s policies. The fact that you cannot see this is sad.

The precentage goes up if you move into another bracket. I assure I did not. So the precentage should not have change if we truly got a tax cut.

 

No, the percentages are higher on an incremental basis. I promise you, the tax withheld on the $6,000 increase is much higher than on the first $6,000.

What I know is Senator Barack Hussein Obama pledged the following multiple times on the campaign trail:

 

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

 

Regardless of how you choose to parse and attribute blame, the above pledge was and is a blatant lie. I find it hysterical that you blame Bush and Reagan when the Dems have dominant control over Congress and the Executive Branch. It is within their full power to extend or make these reductions permanent… whether a significant number of Republicans want to play ball or not.

 

Blaming Republicans for not falling into the lie of class envy is pitiful.

 

Beyond these matters, a tax on indoor tanning services and an additional tax on cigarettes began this year. It affects all income levels. As the Health Care Bill matures, people will have to pay a fine, levied through their income taxes, if they don't have health insurance. Again, this affects all income levels.

 

Please don’t assume that I think or respond as you might.

 

You are correct that I do not like the policies and overall agenda of this president. Beyond that, I hold no malice whatsoever toward the man. To attribute “blind hatred” to me is absurd at best. I do not need to lie to expose the foolishness of BHO’s policies. The fact that you cannot see this is sad.

 

I don't blame anyone. You chose to blame President Obama for actions that were taken before he was president. I merely pointed out that if you find it necessary to blame someone, blame the folks that were in office at the time the laws were passed. What is sad is that you are so eaten up that you don't even see the hatred that oozes from your every post regarding this president. I don't have any class envy. Taxing higher incomes is not class envy, it is prudent policy. Since 1980 the percentage of income earned by the top one percent has risen from about 9 percent of total national income to over 23 percent. That concentration of wealth was last achieved just prior to the great depression. Taxes should be lowered for the middle class and raised for the very wealthy, not as punishment, but rather because a healthy middle class is the key to a strong economy. I know the argument that says that concentration of wealth allows for investment. If that were the case we would be experiencing rapid growth. Instead we have capital sitting on the sidelines due to a lack of demand. The way to stimulate demand is to get money into the hands of the middle class. I laugh every time I hear someone try to make the argument that the possibility of higher taxes on earnings is keeping people from investing in new workers. People aren't hiring because they don't need more workers. If you want more hiring, raise demand. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't do that and a modest tax increase on high incomes won't hurt demand. It isn't envy, it's good policy.

When the tax cuts were enacted during the last decade, the law included a provision that the taxes would go bback up in 2011. If nothing is done the taxes will go up next year under the provisions of the laws signed by President Bush. President Obama has proposed that the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 be made permanent. So far, Republicans have blocked that tax cut because they want the tax cuts to be made permanent for all income levels. I find it hard to believe that the Republicans will block tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans to preserve the tax cuts for the small number of high income earners, but we'll see. It is easy enough for a minority in the Senate to force taxes to go up since no action will result in taxes going up.

During the 80s there were changes to the social security withholding to preserve the financial viability of the program. One of the provisions of that law, signed by President Reagan was that the maximum wages subject to social security withholding would be ajusted each year to account for inflation. That has been the way it has worked for twenty-five years. President Obama has not proposed any change to that law, despite the attempts of some to blame him for it.

 

So basically what you're saying is Obama is trying to extend the Bush economic policies by extending the Bush Tax Cuts....Yeah, your not making a good case on how people should blame Bush for it. If anything he should be praised for his tax policies if his successor is implementing them.

So basically what you're saying is Obama is trying to extend the Bush economic policies by extending the Bush Tax Cuts....Yeah, your not making a good case on how people should blame Bush for it. If anything he should be praised for his tax policies if his successor is implementing them.

 

Actually what TA is trying to say is that if anyone is to blame for the expiration of the Bush cuts, it's Bush, as he's the one who signed the cuts with the current expiration.

So basically what you're saying is Obama is trying to extend the Bush economic policies by extending the Bush Tax Cuts....Yeah, your not making a good case on how people should blame Bush for it. If anything he should be praised for his tax policies if his successor is implementing them.

 

Did you read what I said? I said we should be cutting taxes for the middle class and raising them for upper incomes. President Obama has cut them for the middle class and wants to raise them for upper incomes. That is not the Bush tax policy.

No, the percentages are higher on an incremental basis. I promise you, the tax withheld on the $6,000 increase is much higher than on the first $6,000.

 

Biweekly with holdings - Married

2010 Tax With Holding

$0-$529 = 0

$529-$942 = 10%

$942-$2913 = $41.30 + 15%

 

2009 Tax With Holding

$0-$606 = 0

$606-$940 = 10%

$940-$2910 = $33.40 + 15%

 

$2000 gross pay in 2009 would result in with holdings of $192.40.

$2000 gross pay in 2010 would result in with holdings of $200.00.

 

Where is the tax cut?

Did you read what I said? I said we should be cutting taxes for the middle class and raising them for upper incomes. President Obama has cut them for the middle class and wants to raise them for upper incomes. That is not the Bush tax policy.

 

I should of clarified that I was specifying on those tax cuts for the middle class.

 

Bush has a record of 52 months for most continuous amount of months of job growth and created an average of almost 40,000 jobs a month...Could that do with the Tax policies Bush implemented?

 

And that higher class already pays almost 70% of our income taxes and that's just the top 10% While the bottom 50% pay roughly 3%.

 

Hers is a good reason not to raise the taxes on the wealthy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grant-cardone/taxing-the-rich-hurts-the_b_140895.html

Maybe someone has said this already and I missed it. I have always understood that Bush agreed to a sunset provision as a compromise to get the bill passed.

Maybe someone has said this already and I missed it. I have always understood that Bush agreed to a sunset provision as a compromise to get the bill passed.

You are correct Bball...

 

The sunset provision was the only way GWB could adhere to the Byrd PAYGO Rule that allows Senators to block a piece of legislation if it claims to increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year window. The sunset allowed the bill to stay within the letter of PAYGO.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4032&type=0&sequence=7

 

This is exactly the same Congressional Rule that Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi have trampled multiple times in extending unemployment benefits, creating a $63 billion veterans' entitlement, enacting the $787 billion "stimulus" bill, expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), enacting a farm bill loaded with gimmicks… all loaded with gimmicks to create an illusion of deficit-neutrality.

 

Spending has skyrocketed under Mr. Obama. PAYGO is a joke. Congress waives PAYGO every time it proves even slightly inconvenient.

 

GWB got us tax cuts the only way possible at the time and now the Libs are spinning it to be his fault they will expire. This is hilarious.

 

Clearly, the bottom line is, Mr. Obama is not responsible for anything… unless it is good… and those of us who suggest otherwise are dismissed as “haters”.