What have the Democrats done to lower my taxes?

>Originally Posted by donnA
>by our local economy, we consider anyone making over 50k yr to be among the wealthy, there aren't many of these here,


That's about $24/hour. No big deal in Washington State. You live in a "right to work" state?

 

Right to work! Who would have thunk it in a free country?

 

Right to work in a scab state? No thanks.

 

Yeah, I remember hearing that phrase while having stuff thrown at me and having my tires cut, when I refused to join the Teamsters year ago.

You're right...modern day unions...what makes America great.

 

Last year, Coca-Cola went on strike, which gave our business (temporary staffing) a shot in the arm. Anytime our guys would go to the Coca-Cola plant to work for the company, they always had to worry about people kicking or damaging their vehicles.

If I was in charge of Coca-Cola during that time, I would have fired everyone who was striking & then hired me a staff of new people that were willing to work. I have heard that the truck drivers alone make a descent amout of money per hour.

I also was driving past the intersection they were striking at, walked into a conveniece store nearby, & bought a 20 Oz Coke. Then I drove past them & raised my Coke bottle to them. Some of them gave me a cold, angry stare.

I could understand being part of a union if I were a coal miner. You definetely need to have a safe work environment. I don't understand how one can benefit from being part a union, when you get less than what you normally make by standing at a picket line. I would rather work & earn my full pay, than to have a fee deducted from my pay & get about half of my salary.

 

You have to remember that we are an "ENTITLEMENT" society now.

The fact that the actual benefits may not (in reality) be worth the cost is immaterial.

"I'm sticking it to 'em"! IE that ole demon of mankind - PRIDE!!!!!!

I remember back in the 50s, IIRC, the NYT went on strike for higher wages.

After the settlement the figures were posted, and I calculated that before they actually began receiving any benefit from the settlement, the average employee would have to work for something like an added 20 years.

And this was on the salary they were making before the strike; not counting ANY raises they would get normally in that period.

Unions are just like probably 3/4 of the laws on the books now - had a good purpose when conceived, but basically useless and self-serving today.

 

We did get a tax cut. Starting with hubby's paycheck last week, they took out about 50% less from his paycheck for taxes than they had previously. However, that's gonna come back and bite us come income tax time next year...

I wishi they'd have just left it alone. It's no tax cut at all if they give you more money today and take it back tomorrow!

 

SO! You prefer the dictatorship of corrupt union bosses to the freedom to work? That is reflected in your support of our Fascist leader!

 

I believe that historically unions have been beneficial to the country. However, in recent years [50 or more] the unions have been led by corrupt leadership, particularly the teamsters.

I believe that the Union which did the most for the workers was the United Mine Workers under John L. Lewis. He was one leader who did not fight the mechanization of the industry.

I grew up in coal mining country. I remember the stories of the violence in organizing the mine workers who were treated like slaves by some mine owners [who generally lived in NYC, Philly, at some other Yankee city]. The movie Matewan chronicles some of the violence in Southern West Virginia.

When I was a boy mining was done by drilling a hole in the coal, loading it with dynamite, blowing the coal out and then loading it on a small coal car pulled out of the mine by an electric engine. All this was done in a mine 3-4 feet high. A great way to live. Most underground mining is now done by machines and the number of people working in the mines is probably only about 10% of those in the 30's.

A little history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining#United_States

“Under John L. Lewis, the UMW became the dominant force in the coal fields in the 1930s and 1940s, producing high wages and benefits. In 1914 at the peak there were 180,000 anthracite miners; by 1970 only 6,000 remained. At the same time steam engines were phased out in railways and factories, and bituminous was used primarily for the generation of electricity. Employment in bituminous peaked at 705,000 men in 1923, falling to 140,000 by 1970 and 70,000 in 2003. UMW membership among active miners fell from 160,000 in 1980 to only 16,000 in 2005, as coal mining became more mechanized and non-union miners predominated in the new coal fields.”

 

But they won't reach the point of retirement due to layoffs from jobs going out of the country. How can you put money in a 401K when you have no money or you're so under employed you live check to check?

 

Doesn't change my response, the increased profits the wealthy or big business made from tax relief was mostly given to executives as bonuses etc... You might say those bonuses trickle down into the economy except more of the tax cuts encouraged keeping the money out of the US.

IOW, sure the corporation can be more profitable by reduced taxes but in order to get the tax reduction they must keep the money out of the US. That's not benefiting you and I...

 

Where you been, in a cave?

 

You are sorta right, the world ONLY is not as accurate as primarily. While he did throw a nickel or dime at the common man, most of the true impact was felt by those with cash... However, inaccurate use of words is not limited to those who insert ONLY when describing the Bush cuts, there are a lot of inaccurate words being used to describe Obama's actions also.

The minimum tax rate doesn't apply to the middle class. Those people are closely living in poverty and shouldn't have to pay any tax at all in my opinion.

 

I keep hearing this but I can't find any proof this is true. Does anyone have any validation for this statement?

My understanding is Obama cut the tax rates which means when you file next year the same reduced rates will be used. If your cut took you from 15% to 10%, how will you be "bitten" if you file at the cut rate of 10%?

I really believe this is another GOP myth talking point that simply isn't true...

I believe the basis for this myth is the fact that the tax cuts are temporary and will degrade over time. So you might be 10% this year and 12% next year. That is not recovering the money you were given for the 10% this year, it is raising your tax for next year.

However, keep in mind, Obama tried to make the tax cut's permanent but Congress voted that down. So it is not at all Obama fault your taxes won't stay reduced, he did what he could and Congress shot him down.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1

 

Wow, what a monumentally ignorant statement.

You honestly think "middle class" are on the verge of poverty?

Do some comparisons of what "middle class" is today vs. 100 years ago...or vs. most of the rest of the world. Look at the stuff most "middle class" folks earn today.

I don't disagree so much that taxes shouldn't be high...in fact, I think they should be much lower. (along with spending)

However, your post smacks of wealth envy, as well as showing ignorance as to how well off we truly are. Not to mention, your argument is a stepping stone to nail the rich to the wall. (do that, and you can say goodbye to acheivement, jobs, investment, etc.)

The middle class is not "near poverty." That's crazy talk.

What, are we headed back to the pre-Reagan 70% tax rate? Yeah...that's a great idea...

 

A parallel: Personal finances...if you spend way more than you take in, you have to get it somewhere. Perhaps you can borrow from "the wealthy." (a bank loan, or a rich relative)

At some point, "the wealthy" will get tired of loaning your irresponsible, overspending butt the money you're wasting. So they will do one of three things:

1. Cut off the loan supply;
2. Call the note due immediately;
3. Jack up your rates.

So, Obama and his bunch of fiscally irresponsible and ignorant leadership (give an assist to the recent Republican's penchant for giving our money away) can spend all they want...but it will come back to bite them...and us.

Or, you can do as many do...and pretend that since Obama makes George Washington look like a dolt...we can just trust him; he always knows better for us than we do for ourselves.

 

You have a very valid point regarding property taxes. These will be passed along to the tenants. The federal government, however, does not have control over property taxes.

And regarding raising your prices in order to maintain the same level of profit....maybe. You may also be able to offset the difference by restructuring your expenses to take advantage of different tax advantages.

While your last paragraph is true, we also have to consider the other effects. If expenses go up, the taxable income will go down, as the company can count these expenses against revenue. If they are acquiring goods for sale, then actually the company could do quite well.

Consider the LIFO method (last in, first out). In this case, a company counts the cost of goods sold of the most recently purchased goods against sales revenues. Even if the good sold was acquired at a cost of 40 dollars, if the most recent good was acquired at 90, the company is able to count 90 dollars against the revenue from the sale. I know for publicly traded companies, LIFO may be on the way out, but that's another matter.

 

Apparently you have been living in a cave the last 8 years LB. Did 9/11 scare you that much. Not to worry, President Bush protected you. Can't say the same about obama. I would go back in that cave if I were you. Won't help much when obama's kindred get the nuke though.

What inaccurate words have been used to describe obama?

baby killer, born ot unborn/
Fascist, socialist, radical leftist?
dare I say communist?
racketeer from the Chicago/Daly political corruption?
ACORN graduate?
Protege of Jeremiah? Wright that is.
Then there is that crook Lesko?

When shall I stop LB/

That is an untrue statement LB.

That is also an untrue statement LB. The poorest people in this country live better than 90-95 % or more of the worlds population. Why obama's half brother lives on something like a dollar a month!

 

So the problem is under certain conditions some people may receive more than the maximum allowed. IOW, if I am single working two jobs I will get a $400 rebate at each job which is $400 above my max.

So in the end, some will be overpaid and will have to pay back the overpayment when they file. This means Obama still gave you the tax cut he promised. What you will be paying back is an overpayment and not the rebate. And this is what the GOP means by you will have to pay your tax cut back. Again, stretching the truth.

Thinking about this, I don't know how the IRS could avoid this happening. The problem is that the tax cut has a maximum and there are variables that will make some exceed the maximum but I don't know if you can avoid that with tax tables alone. So IOW, this is really kind of expected.