Get ready to pay, Middle Class.

Evolver · 18th November 2003, 06:22 AM

From today's Boston Globe

Oh, and by the way, we are not allowed to mention that the middle class is once again getting screwed over for the benefit of the ultra-rich. That's "class warfare".

Evolver · 18th November 2003, 06:24 AM

I would personally be all for the Republicans if the actually DID want to reduce my taxes and get the government out of our lives. But when it comes down to it, they never do that.

Corplinx, Tony... come on, tell me how it's all Clinton's fault.

Scott · 18th November 2003, 07:46 AM

A dollar for dollar "government match" for savings?

What a bunch of BS!

Why won't they just cut taxes and let us save that way?

Anyway...

A nice campaign comercial for Edwards, too bad he's got about as much of a chance as Sharpton and Braun and the other seven or so "also rans."

By the way, is any d'rat anywhere willing to define the term "working family?"

How about "hard working Americans?"

What is a tax credit?

Quote:

Edwards wants to keep the tax cuts of recent years that primarily benefit working families (and were Democratic ideas to begin with).

Then , why didn't we get them when the democrats controlled 100% of the government in 1993 and 1994?

Scoobmaster · 18th November 2003, 09:58 AM

snip---

A savings incentive for normal people in the form of a dollar-for-dollar government match of money put into savings up to an income limit of $50,000, roughly the median household income.

end snip----

This is called INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. The forcible TAKING of funds from those who EARNED them and giving it to those who did not. It is one of the core mantras of socialism.

Richard G · 18th November 2003, 10:12 AM

I got a huge tax cut this year. I don't know what your talking about. (I'm middle class).

Luke T. · 18th November 2003, 10:15 AM

One of Edwards' ideas:

Quote:

An exclusion from income tax of the first $1,000 of realized capital gains income and of the first $500 in stock dividends, another idea targeted carefully at the middle.

It doesn't say what the tax rate would be on capital gains income above $1000. Steep, I bet.

clk · 18th November 2003, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evolver

Corplinx, Tony... come on, tell me how it's all Clinton's fault.

Of course it's Clinton's fault! Anytime something bad happens, it's because that damn sex offender did something when he was in the White House. You can blame him for 9/11, the economy, the failure to find OBL, Saddam Hussein, the Paris Hilton sex tape, etc, etc. Anytime something good happens, it is because of something Bush did. Haven't you figured that out by now??

Tony · 18th November 2003, 10:17 AM

How about getting rid of the federal income tax altogether?

That would make leftists happy by substantially downsizing the military, thus making the government unable to pursue "imperialist" wars.

It would make the right happy by not having their money stolen from them.

WildCat · 18th November 2003, 05:06 PM

Let's analyze this...

Quote:

In each case, the top limits on what can be put into these essentially tax-free vehicles would be raised enormously. For retirement funds, for example, up to $15,000 a year could be socked away by a couple with no tax on the accumulating earnings and no tax on withdrawal after the age of 58. For basic investment accounts there would be no tax period.

There's a catch, however. To deal with part of yet another huge addition to the budget deficit, the tax deductibility of retirement contributions -- a major help for Americans of moderate means -- would be eliminated. As it is, most workers are lucky to be able to put anything close to the current maximum into things like IRAs and 401(k) plans on the job.

Personally, I se nothing wrong w/ this. It merely levels the playing field slightly for small business, which often can't offer 401(k) plans.

Why should I (and I am nowhere near upper class) have to subsidize the retirement incomes of those fortunate enough to have a 401(k), as is the case now? All my retirement investments are taxed before they ever go into an IRA, why won't Edwards help me? This is the problem w/ targeted tax breaks, they work for some, those who don't fit into the narrowly defined aspects of it (and in this case it has nothing to do w/ your income) lose out and subsidize the others.

The title of this thread should have been "Retirement Plans Made More Fair". Now, if they would only tax benefits (such as employer-provided health insurance) as income I could further reduce my subsidies to the big-employer elite.

Jon_in_london · 19th November 2003, 05:59 AM

Quote:

As it is, most workers are lucky to be able to put anything close to the current maximum into things like IRA

So, you filthy septics!!! caught donating money to terrorist groups again, eh!!!?!

18th November 2003, 06:22 AM	#1
Evolver Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 783	Get ready to pay, Middle Class. From today's Boston Globe Oh, and by the way, we are not allowed to mention that the middle class is once again getting screwed over for the benefit of the ultra-rich. That's "class warfare".
Evolver Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 783	__________________ "For duty & humanity!" -Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine & Dr. Howard "There's a lot of people that would like to forget about me as soon as possible. I'm on their side." - Frank Zappa "What the hell are you starin' at?" -Duckman

18th November 2003, 06:24 AM	#2
Evolver Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 783	I would personally be all for the Republicans if the actually DID want to reduce my taxes and get the government out of our lives. But when it comes down to it, they never do that. Corplinx, Tony... come on, tell me how it's all Clinton's fault.
Evolver Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 783	__________________ "For duty & humanity!" -Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine & Dr. Howard "There's a lot of people that would like to forget about me as soon as possible. I'm on their side." - Frank Zappa "What the hell are you starin' at?" -Duckman

18th November 2003, 07:46 AM	#3
Scott Scholar Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 113	A dollar for dollar "government match" for savings? What a bunch of BS! Why won't they just cut taxes and let us save that way? Anyway... A nice campaign comercial for Edwards, too bad he's got about as much of a chance as Sharpton and Braun and the other seven or so "also rans." By the way, is any d'rat anywhere willing to define the term "working family?" How about "hard working Americans?" What is a tax credit? Quote: Edwards wants to keep the tax cuts of recent years that primarily benefit working families (and were Democratic ideas to begin with). Then , why didn't we get them when the democrats controlled 100% of the government in 1993 and 1994?
Scott Scholar Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 113

18th November 2003, 09:58 AM	#4
Scoobmaster Thinker Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 130	snip--- A savings incentive for normal people in the form of a dollar-for-dollar government match of money put into savings up to an income limit of $50,000, roughly the median household income. end snip---- This is called INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. The forcible TAKING of funds from those who EARNED them and giving it to those who did not. It is one of the core mantras of socialism.
Scoobmaster Thinker Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 130

18th November 2003, 10:12 AM	#5
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940	I got a huge tax cut this year. I don't know what your talking about. (I'm middle class).
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940

18th November 2003, 10:15 AM	#6
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	One of Edwards' ideas: Quote: An exclusion from income tax of the first $1,000 of realized capital gains income and of the first $500 in stock dividends, another idea targeted carefully at the middle. It doesn't say what the tax rate would be on capital gains income above $1000. Steep, I bet.
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

18th November 2003, 10:17 AM	#7
clk Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,329	Quote: Originally posted by Evolver Corplinx, Tony... come on, tell me how it's all Clinton's fault. Of course it's Clinton's fault! Anytime something bad happens, it's because that damn sex offender did something when he was in the White House. You can blame him for 9/11, the economy, the failure to find OBL, Saddam Hussein, the Paris Hilton sex tape, etc, etc. Anytime something good happens, it is because of something Bush did. Haven't you figured that out by now??
clk Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,329	__________________ "After all, a week ago, there were â€” Yasser Arafat was boarded up in his building in Ramallah, a building full of, evidently, German peace protestors and all kinds of people. They're now out. He's now free to show leadership, to lead the world." â€”George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 2, 2002 Will Ferrell playing President Bush on SNL: "According to a recent poll, nearly 90% of the Arab world believes that some years ago, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarek, Saddam Hussein, and the sultan of Brunei were kidnapped by the CIA and replaced wih Israeli look-alikes. And that later, these look-alikes were killed and replaced by Israeli robots, one of which is a lesbian robot. Also, one of the robots is invisible. Let me just say that this is at best a gross oversimplification of the truth."

18th November 2003, 10:17 AM	#8
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,752	How about getting rid of the federal income tax altogether? That would make leftists happy by substantially downsizing the military, thus making the government unable to pursue "imperialist" wars. It would make the right happy by not having their money stolen from them.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

18th November 2003, 05:06 PM	#9
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,957	Let's analyze this... Quote: In each case, the top limits on what can be put into these essentially tax-free vehicles would be raised enormously. For retirement funds, for example, up to $15,000 a year could be socked away by a couple with no tax on the accumulating earnings and no tax on withdrawal after the age of 58. For basic investment accounts there would be no tax period. There's a catch, however. To deal with part of yet another huge addition to the budget deficit, the tax deductibility of retirement contributions -- a major help for Americans of moderate means -- would be eliminated. As it is, most workers are lucky to be able to put anything close to the current maximum into things like IRAs and 401(k) plans on the job. Personally, I se nothing wrong w/ this. It merely levels the playing field slightly for small business, which often can't offer 401(k) plans. Why should I (and I am nowhere near upper class) have to subsidize the retirement incomes of those fortunate enough to have a 401(k), as is the case now? All my retirement investments are taxed before they ever go into an IRA, why won't Edwards help me? This is the problem w/ targeted tax breaks, they work for some, those who don't fit into the narrowly defined aspects of it (and in this case it has nothing to do w/ your income) lose out and subsidize the others. The title of this thread should have been "Retirement Plans Made More Fair". Now, if they would only tax benefits (such as employer-provided health insurance) as income I could further reduce my subsidies to the big-employer elite.

19th November 2003, 05:59 AM	#10
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Quote: As it is, most workers are lucky to be able to put anything close to the current maximum into things like IRA So, you filthy septics!!! caught donating money to terrorist groups again, eh!!!?!
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me