|
reagan economist favors tax increase
wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:18:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 22:56:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Only an across the board 4-5% tax hike. It is more if you are married and a lot more if you actually have investments. The predictions are that it will cause a pretty big sell off of stocks in 4q10. That will be tough on your 401k. If this little rally holds and we get 10500, I would migrate your 401k into the "safe" fund (government paper) until this all shakes out. I really believe the big money people are going to run these stocks up to get profits out at the lower rates. Don't be holding the bag when they start cashing in. Completely untrue. Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. You are a slippery one. Have you ever run for office? Maid or Gates, raising all the rates, including the lowest tax rate (from 10 percent to 15 percent) is, indeed, an "across the board" tax increase. CC |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You're probably right, but the tax cut needs to go away at some point. It doesn't do anything for the over all economy. yep. wall street has trashed this economy so severely that tax increases are inevitable They need to start with those of us who can afford it... That's the point. That's what was promised. That's not what is going to happen. CC |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You're probably right, but the tax cut needs to go away at some point. It doesn't do anything for the over all economy. yep. wall street has trashed this economy so severely that tax increases are inevitable They need to start with those of us who can afford it... That's the point. That's what was promised. That's not what is going to happen. CC It's too early to tell what's going to actually happen... such is politics. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. You are a slippery one. Have you ever run for office? Maid or Gates, raising all the rates, including the lowest tax rate (from 10 percent to 15 percent) is, indeed, an "across the board" tax increase. CC Lawyer = slippery Yes and no... I was just reading this, which I think spells out the alternatives and the real problem long term. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/ne...e--646402.html |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. You are a slippery one. Have you ever run for office? Maid or Gates, raising all the rates, including the lowest tax rate (from 10 percent to 15 percent) is, indeed, an "across the board" tax increase. CC Lawyer = slippery Yes and no... I was just reading this, which I think spells out the alternatives and the real problem long term. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/ne...e--646402.html The last sentence says it all: "It will not be solved until they bring spending under control.'' CC |
reagan economist favors tax increase
|
reagan economist favors tax increase
On 08/07/2010 12:22 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 07/07/2010 7:48 PM, Charles C. wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message ... martin feldstein, chairman of reagan's council of economic advisors, says we need to raise taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news...n_bin&hpt=Sbin another take: http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy Higher taxes is highly likely if you look at the congress financial forcast for 2011. Unless congress has government take a long needed diet pill. -- Governemnt debt is tax servitude for the middle class. Suggestion... stop taking the "stupid" pill. Skank Polly want a cracker? -- Governemnt debt is tax servitude for the middle class. |
reagan economist favors tax increase
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which part? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. sure sounds like a 4-5% increase to me when you add the 30% reduction to the married couple's standard deduction and the increases in capital gains and dividends, If you don't think today is a temporary rally or that stocks won't see a big sell off right before the taxes go up on the gains, we will just see won't we? I know where I am betting my money. I bet stocks will be a bargain in 1q11 and I bet the big money people rig themselves a rally in 4q10 but it will be a short one. Obama won't mind, because even at the lower CG rate, the government will still get a tax windfall in 2010 and in 2011 they have the tax hike. I do think the government needs the money but I am not sure it helps the recession that just does not seem to be going away. There is no evidence that the huge tax cut for the wealthy did anything for the economy. It should never have been put in place in the first place. If you're concerned about the deficit, then we should cut the military (Ron Paul and Barney Frank have cosponsored legislation to that effect). I don't hear anyone talking about ending oil company subsidies (to the tune of $45B annually). That would actually not be a good idea right now, but we should do it at some point. Talk about gov't being too involved in the economy. No argument on any on that but that is not what I said and what you said was "completely untrue". Bear in mind the whole tax table will go up, including dropping the 10% bracket entirely. That bracket loss only means $404 for Bill Gates, just like the extra $404 for Lupe the maid. She will miss the $404 a lot more. That continues up the scales, whacking everyone along the way, until you finally get to the 1% who will pay some of their income in the 39% bracket. There is no "across the board" tax increase. Not sure how you're adding things up, but comparing what Gates pays vs. what a maid would pay isn't a valid comparison. Did you actually look at the article or understand what the rollback entails. Taking away the 10% bracket and ratcheting up the other brackets is certainly "across the board". The people at the bottom will feel the pain more than the people at the top. Firstly, the tax shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. Secondly, you compared Gates to a maid, which is not a valid comparison. The lower half always "feels the pain" more than the top half. You are a slippery one. Have you ever run for office? Maid or Gates, raising all the rates, including the lowest tax rate (from 10 percent to 15 percent) is, indeed, an "across the board" tax increase. CC Lawyer = slippery Yes and no... I was just reading this, which I think spells out the alternatives and the real problem long term. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/ne...e--646402.html The last sentence says it all: "It will not be solved until they bring spending under control.'' CC Well... it doesn't say it all, but it does say a lot. The thing is that while that's true, there are long-term and short-term solutions. Right now, we can't work on the long-term ones, because of the consequences in the short-term. It's not like people aren't aware of the long-term problem. The question is about timing. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com