[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t support them. But my lack of support is not – cannot – be on constitutional grounds in this case.[/quote]
You do not accept incorporation of the First?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
If one knows their history they will understand that some states in the late 18th century did indeed have established state religions (Rhode Island for one) – yes, AFTER the Constitution was ratified and the First Amendment was in place.
[/quote]
And? People and governments have done lots of things that were unconsitutional since the constiution was ratified. That doesn’t make it right. That is why we have the courts to decide on the constiutionality of the laws.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Holy Fucking Shit.
I hope this is a partisian chop job, because if this this true…
Any government offical that thinks he or she can tell me how much I can or cannot save of my own money, to fund the life I want to live, can flat out kiss my ass.
Sick to my stomach right now.[/quote]
They already do that by limiting how much you can contribute each year to your 401K and IRA. Do you have an issue with that as well? I see the cap as no more than an extension of tax-favored benefits the government gives you to build your wealth. You are welcome to save as much as you like (contrary to your overly-dramatic statement above)…you just can’t enjoy the benefits of tax free savings.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/292071-obama-budget-to-target-wealthy-iras
Holy Fucking Shit.
I hope this is a partisian chop job, because if this this true…
Any government offical that thinks he or she can tell me how much I can or cannot save of my own money, to fund the life I want to live, can flat out kiss my ass.
Sick to my stomach right now.[/quote]
They already do that by limiting how much you can contribute each year to your 401K and IRA. Do you have an issue with that as well? [/quote]
No, because it isn’t the same thing really. The limits are in place because these vehicles are basiclaly tax deferrals and without the limits, the Treasury would miss out on significant tax revenue.
The article is also pretty unclear as to the extent of these balance limits.
Can you explain what you mean here a little more? I think I get it, but I’m low on sleep these days and I’m unclear what you mean.
[quote] You are welcome to save as much as you like …you just can’t enjoy the benefits of tax free savings.
[/quote]
The Roth is the only one that is tax free, and even then it is only on the earnings. Traditional IRA’s will have tax implications when you withdraw in retirement. But that isn’t to discount the advantages of the deferral, they are real, and people should take advantage of them.
I just want to see the actual proposal before I stop being pissed about it. Because if it is combining all your savings in a limit, or any sort of allocation, means testing, etc… It is bullshit.
This is forcing a person to put money in more risky investments, or accounts that might not hedge agaisnt inflation returns are so low. (Not that an IRA or 401k can’t fail either.)
It is just getting a little too close to central planning for my tastes.
That is my reaction to the government telling me things like The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently â??accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.â??
The government can kiss my ass as far as what is or isn’t “reasonable” as far as my retirement & estate is concerned, particularly before I earn it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/292071-obama-budget-to-target-wealthy-iras
Holy Fucking Shit.
I hope this is a partisian chop job, because if this this true…
Any government offical that thinks he or she can tell me how much I can or cannot save of my own money, to fund the life I want to live, can flat out kiss my ass.
Sick to my stomach right now.[/quote]
They already do that by limiting how much you can contribute each year to your 401K and IRA. Do you have an issue with that as well? [/quote]
No, because it isn’t the same thing really. The limits are in place because these vehicles are basiclaly tax deferrals and without the limits, the Treasury would miss out on significant tax revenue.
The article is also pretty unclear as to the extent of these balance limits.
Can you explain what you mean here a little more? I think I get it, but I’m low on sleep these days and I’m unclear what you mean.
[quote] You are welcome to save as much as you like …you just can’t enjoy the benefits of tax free savings.
[/quote]
The Roth is the only one that is tax free, and even then it is only on the earnings. Traditional IRA’s will have tax implications when you withdraw in retirement. But that isn’t to discount the advantages of the deferral, they are real, and people should take advantage of them.
I just want to see the actual proposal before I stop being pissed about it. Because if it is combining all your savings in a limit, or any sort of allocation, means testing, etc… It is bullshit.
This is forcing a person to put money in more risky investments, or accounts that might not hedge agaisnt inflation returns are so low. (Not that an IRA or 401k can’t fail either.)
It is just getting a little too close to central planning for my tastes.
That is my reaction to the government telling me things like The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently â??accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.â??
The government can kiss my ass as far as what is or isn’t “reasonable” as far as my retirement & estate is concerned, particularly before I earn it. [/quote]
That was a pretty shitty article about the proposal, and I agree the spokesperson’s statements were pretty stupid. But the article I read was a bit clearer about it, and basically they are just capping what you can contribute to tax-deferred (401-k) or tax-free (I think that is the right description for a ROTH that you contribute to after taxes but don’t pay taxes on your earnings?) accounts. You pretty much summed it up here why I don’t see this as a bad thing:
I’m about 99.999% sure you can still save as much as you want in a personal savings account or whatever other non-tax-preferential vehicle you choose.
So, what happened to no tax increase for the middle class?
Breitbart:
“Jay Carney confirmed at a press briefing that Barack Obama?s budget would raise taxes on middle class Americans. The confession arose from an exchange between Carney and Major Garrett of CBS News, in which Garrett noted that the implementation of chained CPI as the method of measuring the consumer price index would hurt middle-class Americans:”
CNN:
"Obama has already gotten blasted from the left for supporting a switch to “chained CPI,” which is a new way to measure inflation that would reduce projected federal spending by slowing the growth in federal benefits that are annually adjusted for cost of living. Those include Social Security benefits.
His budget, however, will also call for ways to compensate for the change for low-income veterans, recipients of Supplemental Security Income and the oldest Social Security beneficiaries, a senior administration official said.
Chained CPI would also raise more revenue, since many parts of the tax code are adjusted for inflation every year – including income tax brackets, the standard deduction and contribution limits to 401(k)s.
By 2020, the use of chained CPI could mean an average tax increase of $311 among the nearly 81% of households that would see a tax increase, the Tax Policy Center estimates."
Couple more run downs of the WH Budget…
I will say though, anyone that actually believed with all this talk of “tax the rich” in the last election, that only “rich” people would end up taxed more was a fool or lying to themselves.
And like I’ve said before, I’m not 100% opposed to paying more in tax 100% of the time. If the increases are small, and phased in, and in conjunction with larger cuts in spending, I’ll be fine with them…
How about some humor…
A man claims a group of Southern California women known as the ?Lipstick Bounty Hunters? physically assaulted him and blinded him in one eye when they attempted to bring him into custody last month.
They say they were just trying to do the job they were hired to do.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How about some humor…
A man claims a group of Southern California women known as the ?Lipstick Bounty Hunters? physically assaulted him and blinded him in one eye when they attempted to bring him into custody last month.
They say they were just trying to do the job they were hired to do.[/quote]
They suck. They missed with the Tazer. They should give up on being bounty hunters or hire a Dog to back them up.
http://www.gazette.net/article/20130405/NEWS/130409397/-1/the-x2018-rain-tax-x2019&template=gazette
and in other news, I will now pay a tax on rain…
^for the record I’m about 50 miles from the Bay.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.gazette.net/article/20130405/NEWS/130409397/-1/the-x2018-rain-tax-x2019&template=gazette
and in other news, I will now pay a tax on rain…[/quote]
Good Lord. Houston had a vote on raising a tax on water usage that was suppose to be a flat fee of $5 each month. Once the legislation passed the city wide vote they raised the fee to $10 immediately. We never paid a $5 fee, it went straight to $10. My water bill actually went up $15 because the ordinance changed yet again so it did not hit lower income tax payers. Theirs went to $5 and mine went up to $15. Yeah Liberal Democrats!!! Oh an by the way this fee was to replenish the fund for sewage and drainage construction and upkeep that was raided by another Liberal Democrat to fund something other than construction and upkeep of sewage and drainage. I think the pet project was recycling.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^for the record I’m about 50 miles from the Bay. [/quote]
That tried that here, the rain tax, we killed it by having school officials and business leaders show up and scream bloody murder.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.gazette.net/article/20130405/NEWS/130409397/-1/the-x2018-rain-tax-x2019&template=gazette
and in other news, I will now pay a tax on rain…[/quote]
Good Lord. Houston had a vote on raising a tax on water usage that was suppose to be a flat fee of $5 each month. Once the legislation passed the city wide vote they raised the fee to $10 immediately. We never paid a $5 fee, it went straight to $10. My water bill actually went up $15 because the ordinance changed yet again so it did not hit lower income tax payers. Theirs went to $5 and mine went up to $15. Yeah Liberal Democrats!!! Oh an by the way this fee was to replenish the fund for sewage and drainage construction and upkeep that was raided by another Liberal Democrat to fund something other than construction and upkeep of sewage and drainage. I think the pet project was recycling.[/quote]
Looks like your state took a page from our state.
This is why you must be very careful when voting in a fee, tax, surcharge, levy, or any other useless term which means your wallet gets pried open. These new fees and charges always go up, and they raise them in the middle of the night, on a holiday weekend, when no one is watching. Here we had this idea where, if you bought a hybrid vehicle, you could use carpool lanes even if you were alone. They thought this would give people an incentive to buy hybrids “to help the environment.” The moment the state was starving for money, this perk was removed, done without any discussion or input from anyone. Done, boom, just like Emeril throwing some salt in a pan, BAM !
I really wish people would understand, that all government does is shake people down for money.
They attach some infallible name to their cause (oh it’s for the children, it’s for public safety, it’s for the police and fire, it’s for emergency and 911 services), and the low information sheeple scratch their asses and say “oh, well, we MUST help the children, we MUST have 911, police, fire, etc.”
This is how our governor passed the largest tax increase in history, he said it was for the schools (mainly the classrooms), it went for Union pensions.
Follow the money, look at whomever is sponsoring the idea (usually a Union backed official), and that is the recipient of any new money brought in by the idea.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.gazette.net/article/20130405/NEWS/130409397/-1/the-x2018-rain-tax-x2019&template=gazette
and in other news, I will now pay a tax on rain…[/quote]
Good Lord. Houston had a vote on raising a tax on water usage that was suppose to be a flat fee of $5 each month. Once the legislation passed the city wide vote they raised the fee to $10 immediately. We never paid a $5 fee, it went straight to $10. My water bill actually went up $15 because the ordinance changed yet again so it did not hit lower income tax payers. Theirs went to $5 and mine went up to $15. Yeah Liberal Democrats!!! Oh an by the way this fee was to replenish the fund for sewage and drainage construction and upkeep that was raided by another Liberal Democrat to fund something other than construction and upkeep of sewage and drainage. I think the pet project was recycling.[/quote]
Looks like your state took a page from our state.
This is why you must be very careful when voting in a fee, tax, surcharge, levy, or any other useless term which means your wallet gets pried open. These new fees and charges always go up, and they raise them in the middle of the night, on a holiday weekend, when no one is watching. Here we had this idea where, if you bought a hybrid vehicle, you could use carpool lanes even if you were alone. They thought this would give people an incentive to buy hybrids “to help the environment.” The moment the state was starving for money, this perk was removed, done without any discussion or input from anyone. Done, boom, just like Emeril throwing some salt in a pan, BAM !
I really wish people would understand, that all government does is shake people down for money.
They attach some infallible name to their cause (oh it’s for the children, it’s for public safety, it’s for the police and fire, it’s for emergency and 911 services), and the low information sheeple scratch their asses and say “oh, well, we MUST help the children, we MUST have 911, police, fire, etc.”
This is how our governor passed the largest tax increase in history, he said it was for the schools (mainly the classrooms), it went for Union pensions.
Follow the money, look at whomever is sponsoring the idea (usually a Union backed official), and that is the recipient of any new money brought in by the idea. [/quote]
This fee passed 51% to 49%. The idiodic poor people in Houston think the Democrats will take care of them. When they raised the fee all the poor people came out of the woodwork saying they were dooped. Well it was already passed so they changed it to hit the rich people more.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.gazette.net/article/20130405/NEWS/130409397/-1/the-x2018-rain-tax-x2019&template=gazette
and in other news, I will now pay a tax on rain…[/quote]
Good Lord. Houston had a vote on raising a tax on water usage that was suppose to be a flat fee of $5 each month. Once the legislation passed the city wide vote they raised the fee to $10 immediately. We never paid a $5 fee, it went straight to $10. My water bill actually went up $15 because the ordinance changed yet again so it did not hit lower income tax payers. Theirs went to $5 and mine went up to $15. Yeah Liberal Democrats!!! Oh an by the way this fee was to replenish the fund for sewage and drainage construction and upkeep that was raided by another Liberal Democrat to fund something other than construction and upkeep of sewage and drainage. I think the pet project was recycling.[/quote]
Looks like your state took a page from our state.
This is why you must be very careful when voting in a fee, tax, surcharge, levy, or any other useless term which means your wallet gets pried open. These new fees and charges always go up, and they raise them in the middle of the night, on a holiday weekend, when no one is watching. Here we had this idea where, if you bought a hybrid vehicle, you could use carpool lanes even if you were alone. They thought this would give people an incentive to buy hybrids “to help the environment.” The moment the state was starving for money, this perk was removed, done without any discussion or input from anyone. Done, boom, just like Emeril throwing some salt in a pan, BAM !
I really wish people would understand, that all government does is shake people down for money.
They attach some infallible name to their cause (oh it’s for the children, it’s for public safety, it’s for the police and fire, it’s for emergency and 911 services), and the low information sheeple scratch their asses and say “oh, well, we MUST help the children, we MUST have 911, police, fire, etc.”
This is how our governor passed the largest tax increase in history, he said it was for the schools (mainly the classrooms), it went for Union pensions.
Follow the money, look at whomever is sponsoring the idea (usually a Union backed official), and that is the recipient of any new money brought in by the idea. [/quote]
This fee passed 51% to 49%. The idiodic poor people in Houston think the Democrats will take care of them. When they raised the fee all the poor people came out of the woodwork saying they were dooped. Well it was already passed so they changed it to hit the rich people more.[/quote]
This ^ on a massive scale is what happened with Obamacare. The sheeple believed the Great and Powerful Oz when he talked about “your premiums not going up one dime,” when the well informed people knew this was a steaming bunch of bullshit.
This is how the Democratic Party is winning elections, dupe the stupid, poor, and uninformed, by promising them something and phrase is into something cozy and convenient, and they magically vote for it. Then, if you choose to be against it, they label you as a racist, a bigot, or you hate the poor.
The way to beat it, is to level the playing field, where you show the costs hurt EVERYONE regardless of their color and income level. We beat a sales tax increase, in a city that is highly Democratic and Latino, because Latinos now see the bullshit and scratch their heads and say “dayum, these fucking people are always taxing us, and we are not even rich!”
Eventually, taxes and fees hit everyone, not just the rich. Taxation is like running on a constantly increasing treadmill. It gets faster and steeper, until you eventually fall off, regardless of your income situation.
We have some real champs here:
Sure wish Obama would pay his fair share like all the other 1%ers
"President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama paid an effective tax rate of just 18.4% in 2012 federal income tax.
The figures, released by the White House, come as Obama included in his recently released budget the so-called ?Buffett Rule,? which would slap a 30% minimum tax on anyone earning $1 million.
The Obamas paid $112,214 in federal taxes and $29,450 in Illinois state income tax on an adjusted gross income of $608,611–$274,000 of which came from the president?s book royalties. The Obamas? gross adjusted income fell significantly from 2011, when it was $789,674 and even further from the $5.6 million in 2009.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama attacked Republican rival Mitt Romney for having paid an effective tax rate of 15%. Romney paid a lower tax rate because the bulk of his income was derived from investments.
The Obamas? tax filings also reveal that the first couple donated 24.6% to charity, a sum still under the 29.4% the Romneys donated in 2011. Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden increased their charitable giving last year from 1.5% in 2011 to 1.87% in 2012."