namelesstavern.net

boehner is still offering only idiocy:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 4362.story

The latest Republican offer to resolve the U.S. "fiscal cliff" standoff keeps tax rates low for households making less than $1 million a year, but millionaires get the benefit of lower taxes too, according to a non-partisan study released on Wednesday.

The analysis by the Tax Policy Center found that Republican House Speaker John Boehner's so-called Plan B provides an average tax cut of about $108,000 for households making more than $1 million, when compared to the rates this group would face if the country went over the cliff.


meanwhile obama is trying to break reelection promises before his second term even starts via suddenly "evolving" on chained-CPI:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder ... bama-means

Since 2002, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has released an alternative inflation calculation called the chained CPI. It tends to find smaller changes in consumer prices than the bureau's traditional inflation index, because it accounts for the way consumers gradually adjust their habits of consumption as prices change. If beef gets a lot more expensive and chicken stays the same, consumers will tend to buy more chicken and less beef.

Differences between the two inflation measures are small, often about 0.3 percent in a given year. But over time, the impact can add up. Basing the COLA adjustments on the chained CPI instead of on the traditional CPI would cut the typical 65-year-old's benefit by $130 per year, but after 30 years of retirement that person's annual income would be $1,400 less, says the National Committee To Preserve, Social Security & Medicare.

fuck both parties

fuck both parties

Yep

Doesnt seem like a whole lot can be done aboot it either.

I read somewhere that even if the taxes get raised on the incomes over 250k, that the money gained would run the country for basically 1 week.

I'm sure it will all end in some cockamamie compromise which basically is going to do nothing for the middle class and we'll be having the same issues next year.

Reynaldo wrote:I read somewhere that even if the taxes get raised on the incomes over 250k, that the money gained would run the country for basically 1 week.

I'm sure it will all end in some cockamamie compromise which basically is going to do nothing for the middle class and we'll be having the same issues next year.

I've seen / read something like that too but hte point remains that a scale should exist that the more you make the more tax you pay instead of the more you make the additional loopholes can be used to reduce your overall tax burden. . .

what if you made 255k?

Would you request a 6k decrease in salary to get under the bracket? lol.

Why would you? Under Obama's proposal, if you make over 250k, that first 250k is STILL taxed at the lower rate. Only what you make above that mark gets taxed at the higher rate. So, if you made 255k, your first 250k would be taxed at the sub-250k rate, and your extra 5k would get taxed slightly higher. You still end up ahead, though....

-Arlos

I don't make "that" kind of money, but I hear you Rey. I recall one time in my life where my increase actually caused me a net loss in my take home pay becuase before my increase I was on the upper cusp of the next tax bracket. The increase pushed me into the next tax bracket and once it was all said and done, I actually brought home slightly less. That was years ago and at the time I didn't do any kind of deep dive as to why, so I can't say that was "just tax" vs all the other crap that gets sucked out of my gross before I see it

Well taxes here don't work like that, and I assume it's the same in the US. Everyone is taxed the same for the money in each bracket.

So for example you make 70k

the first 30 or so is not taxed.

The next 30 is taxed at like 30% (just making up the numbers)

and the last 10 is taxed at like 45%.

Making more money will never cost you. There may be other factors in your case Clakar, but I doubt it was simply income tax.

It could have been your dependents that you declared at the time.

Boehner is such a tool. It makes it worse that he's the Republican "attack dog" on these talks because he's just so polarizing of a figure.

I think the 250k tipping point is more than fair, especially if the taxing is as Arlos puts it as you only pay a percentage on the money as it increases and not a 39% on the entire earnings.

If the Democrats would be willing to do some of the long term viable spending cuts, I don't see why a pretty balanced deal can't get done.

I still don't see why the flat/fair tax still doesn't gain traction. Seems easiest to set a number (18%?) that balances the budget and takes care of all this income / capital gains taxing. Give the people the power to manage their own wallets!

I still don't see why the flat/fair tax still doesn't gain traction

Because Ron Paul that has been shown in study after study to have a very negative affect on the lower income earners in our country by making the everyday items that they buy to run a household cost more . It would also more than likely hurt the economy because everyday people would buy a lot less shit.

The people in this country already cant manage there wallets ( herp derp republican talking point) because they are paid shitty wages and live on credit cards or are already behind on paying shit. Outsourcing and robots and destruction of unions have led to people having less spending power than ever before and you cant figure out why more people dont want the goods they buy to cost even more ? Did you even think about that last part while you were typing or did you just regurgitate some right wing talking points you picked up along the way ?

Because the flat tax isn't "fair", in that poor people get screwed. Right now, if you're poor enough, you don't pay any actual income tax. After all, if you're only making 20k a year, 18% off that is a MUCH bigger deal for you than someone making 5mil having to pay 39% on everything above 1mil instead of 18%. In one case, someone might not be able to afford rent or to be able to eat regularly if they lose that $3600 a year, while the guy making 5 mil a year and paying 39% on 4 of it instead of 18% might have to slightly cut back on the size of his yacht due to the difference.

That inequality for people at the poor end of the spectrum is why it's never gone anywhere.

-Arlos

Ya know what I have hated for years on the nt. When I say some shit and than arlos comes behind me and says the same thing arlos style.

Learn to say it better then!

-Arlos

I cant I speak straight up gangsta

Arlos wrote:Because the flat tax isn't "fair", in that poor people get screwed. Right now, if you're poor enough, you don't pay any actual income tax. After all, if you're only making 20k a year, 18% off that is a MUCH bigger deal for you than someone making 5mil having to pay 39% on everything above 1mil instead of 18%. In one case, someone might not be able to afford rent or to be able to eat regularly if they lose that $3600 a year, while the guy making 5 mil a year and paying 39% on 4 of it instead of 18% might have to slightly cut back on the size of his yacht due to the difference.

That inequality for people at the poor end of the spectrum is why it's never gone anywhere.

-Arlos

I didn't expound on it but definitely have concessions in for lower earners that staples of life (certain levels of housing, groceries etc) would be tax-free so it wouldn't hurt the poorer in that regard.

But absolutely if you're going to buy an Escalade to put out in front of your trailer park home, hell yes you're going to pay 20% on it.

Turn off fox news Nigga there anret a whole lot of escalades in the parks. Least not where I come from.

Also what kind of car would it be alright with you for those lower down the ladder to purchase and drive ?

I used the Escalade because that's what I have personally seen before parked outside a single wide (drove by it every day going to work for a year or so). Could insert any perceived luxury item there.

They could buy whatever they could budget for, I don't care what they drive. It was a metaphor for basically saying if you want to use money for necessity, I have no problem building in breaks for that. But if you want luxury items then a flat tax wouldn't give you a break on that just because you're lower income to start with.

The problem then becomes, though, what is and isn't a "luxury item." Would a Focus be one? How about a Jetta? Is it luxury if it's new, but not used? How about Steak instead of Hamburger? Is that a luxury? How about if they need to buy a new TV? At what screen size and/or resolution does that change from a necessity to a luxury? More important, though, is this: who decides what is and isn't a "luxury item" when all is said and done? And where do THEY draw the line? Also, where is the line drawn about who is and isn't poor enough to get the breaks?

Seriously, though, our tax code has been a progressive one, with higher incomes paying more, for about 100 years now. Why is that system suddenly "class warfare" and horribly unfair, when it's the system we've ALWAYS used, for basically as long as we've HAD an income tax? Also, why is 39% a horrible onerous burden for millionaires, when in the 50s (the time the GOP seems to view as the promised-land utopia they want to return to), the top tax bracket went as high as 90%?

-Arlos

Ironic argument because isn't that what's going on right now with the "fiscal cliff" and basically all political standoffs? Neither side can agree on where to set lines on tax increases or specific spending cuts so we're stuck in a limbo where everyone loses.

I'd almost prefer one side, regardless of which one, gets 100% of their wishes, and then we get to see how it works out rather than half and half then more excuses from both sides in 4 years when the next presidential race is going on.

Reynaldo wrote:Ironic argument because isn't that what's going on right now with the "fiscal cliff" and basically all political standoffs? Neither side can agree on where to set lines on tax increases or specific spending cuts so we're stuck in a limbo where everyone loses.

I'd almost prefer one side, regardless of which one, gets 100% of their wishes, and then we get to see how it works out rather than half and half then more excuses from both sides in 4 years when the next presidential race is going on.

I agree.

update:

boehner's plan b never even saw a vote because the tea party terrorists refused to vote for a bill that would only raise taxes on the .01%

what a fuckin clown show

Spazz wrote:Turn off fox news Nigga there anret a whole lot of escalades in the parks. Least not where I come from.

I got pictures of the projects near me if you want. I'll take some on the way to work someday. I bet there's a minimum of 5 in one lot.(with some Mercedes thrown in the mix)

What's missing is Obama's 'offer' is the same budget he presented that was voted down 1-99 in the Senate. Nice negotiating there, jackwagon. Since the Senate won't even present it's own budget, I doubt they'll be able to do anything productive for the fiscal cliff except fall in line behind Obama.

In regards to why a 'flat tax' would be better, our current tax code caters to the wealthy who use loopholes and write offs to pay next to nothing in taxes. Despite the fact fixing those loopholes would do a fuckton more than raising rates for groups that still will find ways to shelter them, it's all about political games.

Zanchief, our tax code is nothing like Canadas. Yours actually makes sense.

Our entire tax code is an abomination that should be completely scrapped, but heaven forbid Fortune 500 companies actually pay taxes, and billion dollar movies actually be forced to admit they made a profit. The middle class will continue to be screwed for both sides special interests.

don't presume i'm happy with obama's plan in the slightest - i think chained CPI is a depraved concept predicated on gradually driving down the quality of life for the most vulnerable, and i wish there were enough progressives in washington to stand up and say so

that being said, i sure do enjoy watching the GOP tear itself apart