[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Yeah...prepare your anus (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 12/7/2012 10:39:48 PM EDT
|
"If you're in the middle 20% of income levels -- between $39,791 and $64,484 -- the average increase would be $1,984. If you're in the top 20% -- $108,267 or above -- the CBO is estimating an average increase of $14,173.
If you're in the top 1% -- with income above $506,210 -- the average increase might be about $120,500." http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=b84b065d-9ae9-452d-92a7-4a369489044a 
Fuck BHO every Commie Cocksuker that voted to reelect this Fucking Chocolate Commie Cocksucker |
|
Quoted:
"If you're in the middle 20% of income levels -- between $39,791 and $64,484 -- the average increase would be $1,984. If you're in the top 20% -- $108,267 or above -- the CBO is estimating an average increase of $14,173. what really chaps me is that the costs of living, and therefore salaries, vary greatly across our great country. at one end of the spectrum... for white collar folks living near (not IN, just near) a metropolitan area such as NYC, $100K is minimum wage and barely covers normal living expenses. and it's worse in silicon valley -- if you are making $100K you are renting an apartment an hour and half away from your job in Mountain View or Palo Alto -- and there is no hope of ever saving up enough to buy a starter house for, say, $700K. hell, most of the cops in NYC are making $100K-125K/year plus some for OT. the fact that there is no regional adjustment whatsoever to this stupidity of "you are rich, you pay more" -- with an absolute value of what "rich" is -- is well asinine. fuck these lawmakers with a rusty pitchfork. ar-jedi |
|
Quoted: $3540 extra per year, just in income taxes... Plus all the increased prices due to businesses having to pay said tax increases... FBHO, and FU to all of the shitstains who voted for him. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I'd like to see a calculator of what the increase would be so i would know exactly how back i am getting screwed but it is looking to be at least $4,000. That's money i would have put away so that i am not a burden on society when i am older. FBHO and his spending like there's no tomorrow. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: "If you're in the middle 20% of income levels -- between $39,791 and $64,484 -- the average increase would be $1,984. If you're in the top 20% -- $108,267 or above -- the CBO is estimating an average increase of $14,173. what really chaps me is that the costs of living, and therefore salaries, vary greatly across our great country. at one end of the spectrum... for white collar folks living near (not IN, just near) a metropolitan area such as NYC, $100K is minimum wage and barely covers normal living expenses. and it's worse in silicon valley -- if you are making $100K you are renting an apartment an hour and half away from your job in Mountain View or Palo Alto -- and there is no hope of ever saving up enough to buy a starter house for, say, $700K. hell, most of the cops in NYC are making $100K-125K/year plus some for OT. the fact that there is no regional adjustment whatsoever to this stupidity of "you are rich, you pay more" -- with an absolute value of what "rich" is -- is well asinine. fuck these lawmakers with a rusty pitchfork. ar-jedi Ummmm... so the government should subsidize living in overpriced areas? So someone living in the suburbs should be taxed more than someone living in a more expensive area? That is a whole lot of fail right there. |
|
Quoted:
Ummmm... so the government should subsidize living in overpriced areas? So someone living in the suburbs should be taxed more than someone living in a more expensive area? That is a whole lot of fail right there. you say "overpriced areas". i say "areas with high employment due to geography or industry base". folks who live out in the sticks should look at their phone bill and wonder how it could possibly be so low, when there are 870 phone poles between the central office and them. do you know who is subsidizing that? ar-jedi |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Ummmm... so the government should subsidize living in overpriced areas? So someone living in the suburbs should be taxed more than someone living in a more expensive area? That is a whole lot of fail right there. you say "overpriced areas". i say "areas with high employment due to geography or industry base". folks who live out in the sticks should look at their phone bill and wonder how it could possibly be so low, when there are 870 phone poles between the central office and them. do you know who is subsidizing that? ar-jedi i live in an area with high employment and a strong industry base and it is relatively expensive compared to surrounding communities, i don't expect the government to subsidize me just because i like the convenience of where i live. If the employment is high and the industry base strong then the pay is usually higher in compensaton as well so i dont' expect the government to subsidize those living there. If you don't make enough to live there, move. It is actually that fucking simple. |
|
Quoted:
If you don't make enough to live there, move. yeah, you lost the plot here. a) Podunk, MO: make $50K, all living expenses $40K, net $10K in "savings". b) Metro, CA: make $100K, all living expenses $90K, net $10K in "savings". so how should tax be apportioned? (b) pays twice the tax of (a) because (b) is "rich" as defined by an arbitrary threshold? ar-jedi |
|
This didn't start recently. Sixteenth amendment was ratified in 1913. Not saying I agree with the current taxes and potential future taxes, but apportioning direct taxes based on population and census data went away a long time ago. Quoted: Quoted: If you don't make enough to live there, move. yeah, you lost the plot here. a) Podunk, MO: make $50K, all living expenses $40K, net $10K in "savings". b) Metro, CA: make $100K, all living expenses $90K, net $10K in "savings". so how should tax be apportioned? (b) pays twice the tax of (a) because (b) is "rich" as defined by an arbitrary threshold? ar-jedi |
|
Well, that's what people voted for.
I think that something that gets lost in the mix is that the Republicans are trying to simplify the tax code by dropping deductions and the Democrats are trying to raise taxes, so the end result will likely be an end to almost all deductions and a serious restriction on the rest and higher taxes. People in metro NYC and LA absolutely WILL be paying all of 60-65% minimum in taxes, if not more, if they are higher earners, and I can easily see it hitting 70%. Like the California property tax situation? That will almost certainly go away. Think that NYC is expensive now? Well, how about another 2%. Think that Obama got you that exemption from Obamacare for a few years because you voted for him? Guess what -- you won't keep that more than a year. Think that they will never take your second government pension away or means test Social Security and Medicare at the same time? Ha! It amazes me that people don't see this coming. But, there are people on this site who still insist that GW Bush was a conservative to this day, if that tells you anything. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The saddest part of all; people voted for this  Actually, it was not "people" who voted for that POS. Scumbag parasites voted for him.  No, a lot of people with jobs and strong opinions did actually vote for the guy. I think that a lot of people don't really understand in many cases how their lifestyle is subsidized by the companies that they work for or the tax payer. They are about to find out when it gets to expensive for either as a result of Obama wanting to give money to the FSA instead. The people who voted for him won't understand at first, but they will get it in time when they wind up with $30 at the end of every month when they used to have $1200. |
|
If it meant that my kids wouldn't inherit this mess, I'd gladly work twice as hard for half as much and die penniless. None of these increases will go to paying day the debt or reducing the deficit though. So it's just going to be a good old fashioned federal fist job. ouch.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bring it on, sooner or later, we are going to hit bottom  it can actually be quite fast at this rate. Yep, maybe people will wake up.  It will definitely get their attention. There is a whole crowd of people in Texas from my age down to about 35 that were right smack in the middle of the oil crash as older kids to young-ish adults, and it stayed with the smart ones. To this day the spending habits and beliefs of most of my peers continues to be influenced by looking around in 1986 and wondering what the heck happened. And I think that most of the US is looking at the same thing for a while. A lot of Americans have just not ever seen the jobs go away completely. I am not talking about the FSA, I am talking about people who were pissed at Bush and horrified at the religious fanatics in the Republican Party and voted against them without thinking about what they were voting FOR. Those folks have jobs. Now, anyway. |
|
I was always told that it was tough to elevate ones self beyond the socioeconomic class they were born into.
It was incredibly hard work work for someone born in poverty to advance themselves into the middle class. It is even harder for the middle class to join the ranks of the wealthy "1%". After decades of working to try to jump hurdles and provide my family the life I desired for them, i recognize that the real barriers are man made....specifically, as a function of taxes, If not for capital gains taxes, income taxes, and various excise taxes, I'd be significantly further ahead financially. I suppose it's true, that those at the top aren't looking for any company. I see this administration as the enemy. They want to actively suppress my ability to advance myself....more so than any previous administration in this nation. Quite frankly, the FSA is too stupid to realize that their own savior is the very individual who is casting them back into chains. I predict that ten years from now we will see an even larger divide between the poor and the rich, with the middle class dwindling. Resentment will grow as will outbursts of anger. Incrementalism as we are seeing it unfold is how civil wars are born. |
|
Quoted:
I was always told that it was tough to elevate ones self beyond the socioeconomic class they were born into. It was incredibly hard work work for someone born in poverty to advance themselves into the middle class. It is even harder for the middle class to join the ranks of the wealthy "1%". After decades of working to try to jump hurdles and provide my family the life I desired for them, i recognize that the real barriers are man made....specifically, as a function of taxes, If not for capital gains taxes, income taxes, and various excise taxes, I'd be significantly further ahead financially. I suppose it's true, that those at the top aren't looking for any company. I see this administration as the enemy. They want to actively suppress my ability to advance myself....more so than any previous administration in this nation. Quite frankly, the FSA is too stupid to realize that their own savior is the very individual who is casting them back into chains. I predict that ten years from now we will see an even larger divide between the poor and the rich, with the middle class dwindling. Resentment will grow as will outbursts of anger. Incrementalism as we are seeing it unfold is how civil wars are born. This is true because of the voters who put them there and we call them the FSA. |