|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 23, 2010 15:14:25 GMT -8
You are starting to see where even some Dems are going against Pelosi on the Bush Tax Cuts. We need stability, not job killing tax hikes. xrl.us/pelosiiswrong |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 23, 2010 17:11:24 GMT -8
You damn Conservative Republicans have never seen a tax cut you did not like.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 24, 2010 9:36:41 GMT -8
Why is it that the Bush cuts are going to expire?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 24, 2010 10:10:47 GMT -8
Why is it that the Bush cuts are going to expire? The way the law was written. Unless extended, they expire at Midnight December 31st 2010. Starting January 1st, the old tax law that the Bush Cuts altered come into effect. The net result is that we will see a tax increase of Five to Fifteen percent in 2011. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 29, 2010 12:50:29 GMT -8
Why is it that the Bush cuts are going to expire? The way the law was written. Unless extended, they expire at Midnight December 31st 2010. Starting January 1st, the old tax law that the Bush Cuts altered come into effect. The net result is that we will see a tax increase of Five to Fifteen percent in 2011. It was written that way because tax bills, to be permanent, need a super majority. The thought is this will guarantee broad support. If the bill can not get a super majority it must have a sunset provision. Bush did not have broad support for his idealogical tax cuts. That is why the tax cuts are expiring. The vast majority of taxpayers will not see any tax increase and may see a decrease. www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m7d26-Bush-tax-cuts-explainedI say let them expire. Enough of voodoo economics. The bills need to be paid. Cutting the deficit is too important to ignore. If we are to take this supply side tax propaganda at face value tax rates should be zero and the government can depend "love offerings" from happy conservatves.  We would see how far that would take us. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 29, 2010 20:17:10 GMT -8
The way the law was written. Unless extended, they expire at Midnight December 31st 2010. Starting January 1st, the old tax law that the Bush Cuts altered come into effect. The net result is that we will see a tax increase of Five to Fifteen percent in 2011. It was written that way because tax bills, to be permanent, need a super majority. The thought is this will guarantee broad support. If the bill can not get a super majority it must have a sunset provision. Bush did not have broad support for his idealogical tax cuts. That is why the tax cuts are expiring. The vast majority of taxpayers will not see any tax increase and may see a decrease. www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m7d26-Bush-tax-cuts-explainedI say let them expire. Enough of voodoo economics. The bills need to be paid. Cutting the deficit is too important to ignore. If we are to take this supply side tax propaganda at face value tax rates should be zero and the government can depend "love offerings" from happy conservatves. We would see how far that would take us. ;D How long will it be before we have a flat tax to put you tax Shylocks out of business? You guys are just slightly more ethical than lawyers! When th law changed to make you responsible for your clients returns you became an advocate for the government rather than your tax clients. A fine bunch of ethical fellows you guys are! |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 30, 2010 8:35:58 GMT -8
Win, and 70, we need that Flat Tax. Let's all push for it. The first $30,000 tax free so working men all across America can feed their families. THEN fifty percent of everything above that that is made.
That sounds fair to me, and is the same rate for all.
We could include an additional $5000 tax free for each of the first two children, but nothing after that. Two kids per family should be the ideal. If a couple wants more, they should not get any break from the government to overpopulate the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 30, 2010 10:50:57 GMT -8
Win, and 70, we need that Flat Tax. Let's all push for it. The first $30,000 tax free so working men all across America can feed their families. THEN fifty percent of everything above that that is made. That sounds fair to me, and is the same rate for all. We could include an additional $5000 tax free for each of the first two children, but nothing after that. Two kids per family should be the ideal. If a couple wants more, they should not get any break from the government to overpopulate the world. I would go for a flat tax, but think we will have a little problem having a meeting of the minds about the numbers.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 31, 2010 7:34:41 GMT -8
Win, and 70, we need that Flat Tax. Let's all push for it. The first $30,000 tax free so working men all across America can feed their families. THEN fifty percent of everything above that that is made. That sounds fair to me, and is the same rate for all. We could include an additional $5000 tax free for each of the first two children, but nothing after that. Two kids per family should be the ideal. If a couple wants more, they should not get any break from the government to overpopulate the world. I would go for a flat tax, but think we will have a little problem having a meeting of the minds about the numbers. Well, I can see going up to $32,000 tax free, but then we would have to increase the Federal Flat Tax to 52% of everything above that and reduce the child credit to only $4000 for each of the first two children. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 31, 2010 7:52:11 GMT -8
I would go for a flat tax, but think we will have a little problem having a meeting of the minds about the numbers. Well, I can see going up to $32,000 tax free, but then we would have to increase the Federal Flat Tax to 52% of everything above that and reduce the child credit to only $4000 for each of the first two children. You are getting pretty good at being a liberal Joe. We are aways apart. I was going to say 2% of everything up to 500K and then 3%. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 31, 2010 10:42:36 GMT -8
It was written that way because tax bills, to be permanent, need a super majority. The thought is this will guarantee broad support. If the bill can not get a super majority it must have a sunset provision. Bush did not have broad support for his idealogical tax cuts. That is why the tax cuts are expiring. The vast majority of taxpayers will not see any tax increase and may see a decrease. www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m7d26-Bush-tax-cuts-explainedI say let them expire. Enough of voodoo economics. The bills need to be paid. Cutting the deficit is too important to ignore. If we are to take this supply side tax propaganda at face value tax rates should be zero and the government can depend "love offerings" from happy conservatves. We would see how far that would take us. ;D How long will it be before we have a flat tax to put you tax Shylocks out of business? You guys are just slightly more ethical than lawyers! When th law changed to make you responsible for your clients returns you became an advocate for the government rather than your tax clients. A fine bunch of ethical fellows you guys are! I see. No comment on the isssue. Just a personal attack. That's cool. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 31, 2010 11:46:14 GMT -8
How long will it be before we have a flat tax to put you tax Shylocks out of business? You guys are just slightly more ethical than lawyers! When the law changed to make you responsible for your clients returns you became an advocate for the government rather than your tax clients. A fine bunch of ethical fellows you guys are! I see. No comment on the isssue. Just a personal attack. That's cool. That is sort of personal and I should not have taken that approach. I can hardly blame people for taking advantage of the career path that our horrible tax law has made necessary to help folks file their required returns. I thought that you would want to comment on the change in who you represent and why. I have explained how sensible tax policy can help with tax revenue so many times it gets tiring. What I really get tired of explaining to you tax and spenders is that irresponsible spending is our main problem. We try to do so many things that are not legit functions of the Federal Government that we are overwhelmed with programs for which there is no real need or that are even counter-productive. We need a flat tax or a regressive National Sales Tax. What I should have said is that would allow you accounting clerks tax professionals to focus on investment advice or running partnerships. Is that better or should I try again? I understand why the law was done as it was. Kind of the reverse of the Congressman Wiener flare up a couple days ago. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 31, 2010 11:55:27 GMT -8
We could include an additional $5000 tax free for each of the first two children, but nothing after that. Two kids per family should be the ideal. If a couple wants more, they should not get any break from the government to overpopulate the world. But what the hell are you gonna do? You have dozens of kids; you'd be living in the streets. Correction, I have hundreds of Grandchildren. AND, many of them are still living with me along with five adult children. Let this be a lesson learned that if you have an eight bedroom house, bodies will show up to fill the bedrooms long after your children are adults. |
|
We would see how far that would take us. ;D
