What The Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts Will Mean

[Mikey]

You really need some deductions dawg.

[Mikey]

The self-employment tax sucks ass. I had to pay that for 5 years and it fuckin' hurt.

Plus, it seemed like for about 10 years my SS income was within a couple $K of the payroll tax cap. So I've been paying the max payroll tax on the minimum possible income. Just another way they screw the middle class.

My AGI (now that the OL went back to work) might be in one of those categories, but with the mortgage interest deduction, etc., etc. my effective federal tax rate was only about 10.5% last year. Not really all that bad IMO. And if the tax cut expires, I don't think it will go up all that much.

[Tom In VA]

And besides. Our new crop of 18-29 year olds have been indoctrinated throughout their entire "education" experience.

Experience Obama

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa7343fe-ab6f ... 07658.html

By large margins, young people believe that Mr Obama can and will change the direction of the country. Their view that government should take an active role in society separates them from older voters. Young people want to see government try to solve problems, like environment and healthcare, and are willing to pay a little more in taxes to make it happen. Their view is indicative of a larger problem for the Republican party.

James Carville, that slimy, slippery LA snake.

I wonder what's going to happen as these young people grow older, see their taxes, and realize Government creates more problems than it solves.

Post Office, DMV, FEMA , FBI, ATF, .....

Incompetent bureaucracy that will soon be in charge of your:

1. Healthcare
2. Regulating what and how much energy YOU consume - not what THEY consume.
3. Solving all the problems in the world.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NuAzSW4z3o4&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NuAzSW4z3o4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Part 1.

"Educating our youth"

[poptart]

I can listen to those ignorant twiddlefucks for about 4 seconds, Tom.
Please find a shorter clip next time. haha

The knee-jerk reaction is to verbalize sodomize such pitiful Americans.

But when pausing to consider how they've been indocrinated into such an ideology from kindergarten all the way through whatever level of schooling they are at, I more pity them.

It's all very predictable.


They've not paid taxes.

Daddy has done it all for them.

They have no clue about reality.

Personally, it'd be my own policy that 'the state' would sew their dicksuckers closed until such time as they've paid their first tax bill.

I'm hard core.

[Rasputin]

It will mean that Pelosi and Reid (and the other guy) will raise the tax rates across the board on anyone who actually pays them. 95% of who are going to be kinda surprised.

[BSmack]

Don't even start talking about a tax increase. Let's just let the reality of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts sink in for a while.

Oh fear not, I am.

[Tom In VA]

Don't even start talking about a tax increase. Let's just let the reality of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts sink in for a while.

Oh fear not, I am.

Okay dude, since you're idealogy has won the day, I need to educate myself. Maybe you're willing to help.

Why are you so happy about an increase in taxes ? They'll increase by default of course when the Bush cuts expire and then they'll go up - if Obama - succeeds in accomplishing his objectives.

That's good for us how ?

[MuchoBulls]

Okay dude, since you're idealogy has won the day, I need to educate myself. Maybe you're willing to help.

Why are you so happy about an increase in taxes ? They'll increase by default of course when the Bush cuts expire and then they'll go up - if Obama - succeeds in accomplishing his objectives.

That's good for us how ?

I think looking at his avatar should pretty much answer your questions.

[Goober McTuber]

Don't even start talking about a tax increase. Let's just let the reality of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts sink in for a while.

Oh fear not, I am.

Okay dude, since you're idealogy has won the day, I need to educate myself. Maybe you're willing to help.

Why are you so happy about an increase in taxes ? They'll increase by default of course when the Bush cuts expire and then they'll go up - if Obama - succeeds in accomplishing his objectives.

That's good for us how ?

If the expiring tax cuts we’re talking about start at $150,000, I don’t think you’ll have to worry, Tom.

[Rasputin]

Don't even start talking about a tax increase. Let's just let the reality of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts sink in for a while.

It's the same thing.

[trev]

I can listen to those ignorant twiddlefucks for about 4 seconds, Tom.
Please find a shorter clip next time. haha

Cliff notes:

woo hoo Obama, he's like going to not only help out the rich people, but, like, the poor people. So, like, if you wanna give us money, you'll, like, be helping us out later, like, for sure.

[BSmack]

If the expiring tax cuts we’re talking about start at $150,000, I don’t think you’ll have to worry, Tom.

They actually start at 250,000. Obama has made it clear that anybody making under 250k will not see a tax increase. For him to violate that pledge would be like Bush 41 turning his back on his "No new taxes" pledge. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't expect Obama to commit political suicide anytime soon.

[Tom In VA]

If the expiring tax cuts we’re talking about start at $150,000, I don’t think you’ll have to worry, Tom.

Okay, I'll play. Why don't you think I'll have to worry ?



BSmack,

I work for a non-profit. Donations are key. Do you foresee people being able to donate more or less with an increase in taxes ? The argument could be made, high taxes are "good" I suppose in that it compels people to give to their chosen charities, and they can deduct those contributions. I can see that angle. But what do you think happens to charitable giving when taxes are so high ?

[Rasputin]

If the expiring tax cuts we’re talking about start at $150,000, I don’t think you’ll have to worry, Tom.

They actually start at 250,000. Obama has made it clear that anybody making under 250k will not see a tax increase.

Which is why he will claim it's not really an increase, just a return to the status quo ante. Meanwhile, everyone's marginal tax rates go up. Then he'll give a measely couple hundred to a thou (depending on income) in tax credits, and say he's cut taxes on the brainless masses.

Assume the position, America. And no, he's not going to use any lubricant.

[BSmack]

BSmack,

I work for a non-profit. Donations are key. Do you foresee people being able to donate more or less with an increase in taxes ? The argument could be made, high taxes are "good" I suppose in that it compels people to give to their chosen charities, and they can deduct those contributions. I can see that angle. But what do you think happens to charitable giving when taxes are so high ?

So I suspect you're adamantly opposed to a flat tax? Because that would kill the living fuck out of non profits.

Honestly, I don't have the foggiest idea what rich people do with their charity money when taxes are raised on them. Nor am I overly concerned. Top down charity has been an utter failure. We are all better off when we are all better off, not when some billionaire decides to drop some table scraps on his tax shelter errr "foundation".

[BSmack]

They actually start at 250,000. Obama has made it clear that anybody making under 250k will not see a tax increase.

And you're fucking stupid enough to believe him. He's not going to be able to pay for all his pie in sky fantasy bullshit by soaking the rich, you ignorant dumbfuck.

So guess fucking what that means for you?

Should I believe you??? You haven't been right about a fucking thing since 2004.

[Rasputin]

Top down charity has been an utter failure. We are all better off when we are all better off, not when some billionaire decides to drop some table scraps on his tax shelter errr "foundation".

As opposed to the stellar efficiency of government programs?

[Left Seater]

They actually start at 250,000. Obama has made it clear that anybody making under 250k will not see a tax increase. For him to violate that pledge would be like Bush 41 turning his back on his "No new taxes" pledge. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't expect Obama to commit political suicide anytime soon.

So for him to not commit political suicide, he will have to extend or make permanent the Bush tax cuts. Otherwise, those under 250K will see a tax increase when the cuts sunset.

Now that would be great if he does it, but my guess is he will use double speak and blame previous administrations and congress when the tax cuts do sunset. Meanwhile those under 250 will see a tax increase.

[Tom In VA]

So I suspect you're adamantly opposed to a flat tax? Because that would kill the living fuck out of non profits.

Honestly, I don't have the foggiest idea what rich people do with their charity money when taxes are raised on them. Nor am I overly concerned. Top down charity has been an utter failure. We are all better off when we are all better off, not when some billionaire decides to drop some table scraps on his tax shelter errr "foundation".

I'll own up to being ignorant of a flat taxes impact on non profits.

Your candor is appreciated. I just don't know if there are models that exist where "we are all better off when we are all better off" based on compulsory redistribution of wealth. How long have been fighting a war on poverty ? A long time, longer than LBJ's declaration on such. "There's no end in sight". Is there an "exit strategy" ?

There just seems something, wrong, with the notion that self annointed people in power can choose who gets what. I'll take some from you to give to the other guy to level things out. Goes back to "choice" I suppose. As for redistributing the money by creating agencies which are geared towards producing something or providing some service. That's a slippery slope. I know we like to cite The New Deal and agencies like the TVA as an example of it's success.

Discussing these things with a co-worker, there is a model, it's called the Department of Defense. Money allotted for research and development - created jobs. Going back to DARPA of course, that created what we're communicating on. So, it would seem there is some validity in a model that employs government as a - employer for all intents and purposes - from an economic point of view. From a constitutional point of view, that's a whole different ball of wax. There are some things the Fed has no business getting involved in.

[BSmack]

So I suspect you're adamantly opposed to a flat tax? Because that would kill the living fuck out of non profits.

Honestly, I don't have the foggiest idea what rich people do with their charity money when taxes are raised on them. Nor am I overly concerned. Top down charity has been an utter failure. We are all better off when we are all better off, not when some billionaire decides to drop some table scraps on his tax shelter errr "foundation".

I'll own up to being ignorant of a flat taxes impact on non profits.

Your candor is appreciated. I just don't know if there are models that exist where "we are all better off when we are all better off" based on compulsory redistribution of wealth. How long have been fighting a war on poverty ? A long time, longer than LBJ's declaration on such. "There's no end in sight". Is there an "exit strategy" ?

There just seems something, wrong, with the notion that self annointed people in power can choose who gets what. I'll take some from you to give to the other guy to level things out. Goes back to "choice" I suppose. As for redistributing the money by creating agencies which are geared towards producing something or providing some service. That's a slippery slope. I know we like to cite The New Deal and agencies like the TVA as an example of it's success.

Discussing these things with a co-worker, there is a model, it's called the Department of Defense. Money allotted for research and development - created jobs. Going back to DARPA of course, that created what we're communicating on. So, it would seem there is some validity in a model that employs government as a - employer for all intents and purposes - from an economic point of view. From a constitutional point of view, that's a whole different ball of wax. There are some things the Fed has no business getting involved in.

I'll give you a list of just a few things the government needs to get involved in post haste that are not at all questionable from even the most rigid of strict constructionist models.

1. Levee upgrades- Is it too much to ask that the United States have a levee system equal to that of Holland?

2. Interstate highway bridges- We did a study on defective bridges after the I-35 collapse. There are hundreds of bridges that need repair. That work should be done as soon as humanly possible.

3. Updating the national power grid- There is no way we can become energy independent until the power grid is updated to allow for more domestic production capacity. This is absolutely essential.

Those are just a few things only the federal Government an handle that need to get done NOW. And if they do get done, they will provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs for American workers.

[PSUFAN]

Is there any doubt whatsoever that the tax code needs to be utterly transformed? Let me know if there is.

[BSmack]

So for him to not commit political suicide, he will have to extend or make permanent the Bush tax cuts. Otherwise, those under 250K will see a tax increase when the cuts sunset.

Now that would be great if he does it, but my guess is he will use double speak and blame previous administrations and congress when the tax cuts do sunset. Meanwhile those under 250 will see a tax increase.

No, you will see legislation making cuts permanent for those under 250k. It's not exactly rocket science, Obama HAS to live up to that 250k promise or he'll be tarred and feathered for it.

[Left Seater]

1. Levee upgrades- Is it too much to ask that the United States have a levee system equal to that of Holland?

The Federal Government doesn't need to be in the levee business. That is a local issue. Sure they can have some construction guidelines and reviews of existing levees, but that is it.

Here in the Houston area we have an extensive levee system that saved a ton of property from Ike. Fact is we pay local taxes, have local representatives that make up levee boards, and we are doing just fine. No need for the Feds to get involved.

Further what everyone needs to understand is that there is no perfect levee. All levees will fail or be overtopped at some point. What they can do is prevent flooding on a decade type basis. NOLA and the Mississippi river are perfect examples of levees meeting that example. The Mississippi has built the land south of Cairo IL, no levee will ever hold it back completely in a nice 2 mile wide channel. Same for NOLA.

If people choose to live and work in these areas then they need local levee boards to establish a tax rate for the construction and upkeep. People in Houston Texas are paying for ours and it works.

[Rasputin]

No, you will see legislation making cuts permanent for those under 250k. It's not exactly rocket science, Obama HAS to live up to that 250k promise or he'll be tarred and feathered for it.

He's Obama. He'll just lie and spin his way out of it. Besides, he HAS to tax the fuck out of all of us to pay for all the money he's promised to spend- I mean invest.

[smackaholic]

I'll give you a list of just a few things the government needs to get involved in post haste that are not at all questionable from even the most rigid of strict constructionist models.

1. Levee upgrades- Is it too much to ask that the United States have a levee system equal to that of Holland?

local issue as LS has said. NOLA is a major port. Use the fees they collect to take care of this rather than stuffing freezers with it. Ofcourse, being NOLA, they will fukk it up. And they will be replaced.

2. Interstate highway bridges- We did a study on defective bridges after the I-35 collapse. There are hundreds of bridges that need repair. That work should be done as soon as humanly possible.

yes it should....on the state and local level

3. Updating the national power grid- There is no way we can become energy independent until the power grid is updated to allow for more domestic production capacity. This is absolutely essential.

The feds do have a roll here. That roll is to get the fukk out of the way and let the utility companies do what needs to be done. They have been trying to lay a transmission cable across long island sound for years, btu, connecticut's attention whore AG has been fighting it. The feds need to slap down such asshole and allow shit to get done. This is different from doing it themselves.

Those are just a few things only the federal Government an handle that need to get done NOW. And if they do get done, they will provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs for American workers.

Just a few huh? I guess that means there are more, right bri? Who decides which ones are worthy? The one with the best fukking lobbiest, that's who. Let it be handled on the lowest level possible. Thsi means YOU will have more say in how or if it's addressed. It's really a simple concept. Why the fukk can't libs grasp it?

[MuchoBulls]

Obama HAS to live up to that 250k promise or he'll be tarred and feathered for it.

The way he has the media wrapped around his finger he'd probably get away with it in their eyes if he does it. If he is able to stick to that promise, then great job, but I just cannot see that promise being kept for 4 years.

[Cuda]

Obama HAS to live up to that 250k promise or he'll be tarred and feathered for it.

[War Wagon]

Meanwhile, the stock market is down big for the 2nd straight day. I guess the day traders aren't all that hopeful that the change Obama is going to bring is the kind one can believe in.

[Rasputin]

Meanwhile, the stock market is down big for the 2nd straight day. I guess the day traders aren't all that hopeful that the change Obama is going to bring is the kind one can believe in.

I guess the 'youth vote' doesn't actually have that much invested. Young, dumb and full of shit. Perfect constituency for the empty suit.

[BSmack]

I'll give you a list of just a few things the government needs to get involved in post haste that are not at all questionable from even the most rigid of strict constructionist models.

1. Levee upgrades- Is it too much to ask that the United States have a levee system equal to that of Holland?

local issue as LS has said. NOLA is a major port. Use the fees they collect to take care of this rather than stuffing freezers with it. Of course, being NOLA, they will fukk it up. And they will be replaced.

For starters, New Orleans is not the only place in need to levee repair/upgrades. Furthermore, as was demonstrated in 2005, we cannot afford as a country to have a major city wiped off the map because the local management failed. This is an issue of national security if there ever was one.

2. Interstate highway bridges- We did a study on defective bridges after the I-35 collapse. There are hundreds of bridges that need repair. That work should be done as soon as humanly possible.

yes it should....on the state and local level

President Eisenhower thinks you're batshit crazy. Properly maintained interstate highways are an essential element of our national security.

3. Updating the national power grid- There is no way we can become energy independent until the power grid is updated to allow for more domestic production capacity. This is absolutely essential.

The feds do have a roll here. That roll is to get the fukk out of the way and let the utility companies do what needs to be done. They have been trying to lay a transmission cable across long island sound for years, btu, connecticut's attention whore AG has been fighting it. The feds need to slap down such asshole and allow shit to get done. This is different from doing it themselves.

Wrong again. We cannot allow the short term balance sheet interests of utility companies dictate our country's path to energy independence. It is imperative to our long term national security that we not be spending billions of dollars to protect our interests in Middle Eastern fossil fuel reserves.

Those are just a few things only the federal Government an handle that need to get done NOW. And if they do get done, they will provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs for American workers.

Just a few huh? I guess that means there are more, right bri? Who decides which ones are worthy? The one with the best fukking lobbiest, that's who. Let it be handled on the lowest level possible. Thsi means YOU will have more say in how or if it's addressed. It's really a simple concept. Why the fukk can't libs grasp it?

Yea, there are plenty more. And they'll have to be considered by merit as best as we can. That's the way it has always been done. Your slavish devotion to the idea of state and local control of what have always been national resources is wrongheaded and not supported by any Constitutional law I am aware of.

[Tom In VA]

Compelling and accurate arguments Bri. Framed very nicely.

I don't think the examples you've offered are in any way egregious examples of Federal over reaching.

Reasonable stuff.

However right now, mid east oil, is crucial to our economy and the globes. Until a satisfactory alternative is found, we're stuck.

[Cuda]

We cannot allow the short term balance sheet interests of utility companies dictate our country's path to energy independence. It is imperative to our long term national security that we not be spending billions of dollars to protect our interests in Middle Eastern fossil fuel reserves..

anybody have a gibberish to english translator handy?

[Left Seater]

Again, the grid is a local issue.

We have tons of options for cleaner energy generation here at home, but amazingly the dems are against it. Look no further than the home of Teddy K. Groups have wanted to install wind generation off of Cape Cod for years out in the water where it doesn't have to sit in someone's back yard. Of course Teddy is against it because he doesn't want to look at it and he is worried about property values. One way or the other Teddy.

Also, here in Texas where oil is king we are investing heavily in alternative forms of energy. We continue to sell excess power to states like Cali where they refuse to build the number of power generation stations they require. So we keep these old plants on stand by and fire them up a few times a year and charge Cali out the ass for it. In the meantime we are building huge wind farms in southwest and central west Texas to meet some of the needs of our larger cities on the eastern part of the state. Then even more of the excess power can be sold to Cali and some going East.

There is a reason huge parts of the country have these rolling blackouts that don't happen here. The reason is because we decided to isolate ourselves and rely on ourselves rather than the feds to do it for us. No reason other states can't do this themselves.



NOLA is not an example of national security. There are plenty of ports along the Gulf that could quickly pick up the slack of NOLA. Hell, even Corpus Christi has taken some of NOLA's traffic due to a number of issues with shippers then transporting the items inland via rail instead of the Mississippi. Look no further than KCS adding double track between Rosenberg Texas and Victoria to shorten the trip for goods between CC and Houston by 157 miles.

[Rasputin]

We cannot allow the short term balance sheet interests of utility companies dictate our country's path to energy independence. It is imperative to our long term national security that we not be spending billions of dollars to protect our interests in Middle Eastern fossil fuel reserves..

anybody have a gibberish to english translator handy?

Sorry. Nicky Frisco caused mine to explode.

[smackaholic]

We cannot allow the short term balance sheet interests of utility companies dictate our country's path to energy independence. It is imperative to our long term national security that we not be spending billions of dollars to protect our interests in Middle Eastern fossil fuel reserves..

anybody have a gibberish to english translator handy?

Sorry cudes, but mine is in the shop. I was watching the the Obama channel last week and it blew the fukk up right in front of me.

[PSUFAN]

If people choose to live and work in these areas then they need local levee boards to establish a tax rate for the construction and upkeep. People in Houston Texas are paying for ours and it works.

I completely agree with that. Is NOLA even habitable? Listen, folks...I love the place, really, I do...but it is (still) a disaster waiting to happen, and no amount of fed money can change that. At some point, the Gulf will close over your nostrils for the final time.

If you really give a fuck about your future, then best move out of a bowl that is below sea level.

Also, atop a cliff in Laguna Hills is a stupid place to build a mansion, and beachside houses in Malibu are no different.

[BSmack]

I completely agree with that. Is NOLA even habitable? Listen, folks...I love the place, really, I do...but it is (still) a disaster waiting to happen, and no amount of fed money can change that. At some point, the Gulf will close over your nostrils for the final time.

If you really give a fuck about your future, then best move out of a bowl that is below sea level.

Also, atop a cliff in Laguna Hills is a stupid place to build a mansion, and beachside houses in Malibu are no different.

Hey, the idea that NOLA is unsustainable is one I'm inclined to agree with. We could just close the port, order all the refineries in NOLA shut down and have everything shipped up river to say Baton Rouge.

However, that's not a politically realistic situation. Besides, people in the Netherlands have been living below sea level and have suffered storm surges comparable to or greater than Katrina with no major damage since 1953. This is not a matter of theory, this is technology that has been proven effective countless times. The trouble is, it is far too expensive for a single metro area, especially one that is still rebuilding from the last flood, to pay for and build such a flood control project.

[Left Seater]

Interconnections are, but not the complete grid.

Yes we need a way for power to get to Florida if they were attacked and their power generation went off line. But the complete grid is not, this is something we should be doing locally.

[smackaholic]

Besides, people in the Netherlands have been living below sea level and have suffered storm surges comparable to or greater than Katrina with no major damage since 1953. This is not a matter of theory, this is technology that has been proven effective countless times. The trouble is, it is far too expensive for a single metro area, especially one that is still rebuilding from the last flood, to pay for and build such a flood control project.

The north sea gets 'canes? I'm n climatologist, but, I could have swore it took warm water.

The north atlantic certainly does get it's share of crap weather, but, I doubtit sees the kind of storm surges that come with cat 4-5 hurricanes.

And NOLA being a decent sized city and a major port, certainly does have the resources. Prbably more than the dutch.

The big difference between the two is the netherlands is run by reasonably competent folks. it's a white euro thing. NOLA on the other hand is run by corrupt incompetent baboons. Allow them to sink or swim an i'm guessing that they will sink for awhile before figuring out how to swim. But, as long as uncle sugar keep proping them up, they will remain fukked up.

[Rasputin]

The big difference between the two is the netherlands is run by reasonably competent folks. it's a white euro thing. NOLA on the other hand is run by Democrats.

FTFY.