Has anyone else noticed?

[mav]

You are now paying more taxes.  :clap:  I was just checking my bank account and noticed my employer deposited my check yesterday.  I noticed that it was less than my previous checks, and here I thought the middle class wasn't supposed to effected  ;)  .

 

Seriously, I knew it was coming since they didn't extend the reduced payroll tax.  While the tax increase really doesn't hurt me, it is the principle that matters.  It seems to me that if the government wants to force me to live on less money that perhaps they should do the same.  If I have to cut, then they should have to cut.

 

Ya know, last year was the first year I didn't vote straight line Republican.  I voted pretty much all independent as sort of a protest vote. What Republicans have shown me recently is that I was right in doing so.  If Republicans cave on gun control, immigration, global warming, or any other nonsense then I will be totally finished with the Republican party.  If the country is going to crash, fiscally speaking, then I want no part of voting in the very a$$holes who are causing it.

[RED333]

Yep, payrole tax went up, we were lied to AGAIN, go figure.

[runco]

A couple of things, the temporary 2% Social Security Tax repreieve was not renewed, so for sure you were hit with that.  This is not a income tax, just tax on social security (a spin so to speak), and then this was a question that I asked my HR person at work last week.  Logistcially, did our payroll service keep up with what was going on in the media, or are we going to have a least 1 or 2 payroll checks with presumed major tax increases.  My HR guy thought likely a temporary tax hike because congress acted so late, and payroll companies had to make assumptions before the actual bill was passed.  I assume you and I will are hit for sure with the 2% plus maybe what the payroll company had to assume.  Of course we will get back the assumptions (hopefully).

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It is slight of hand to say that social security/medicare tax is not income tax. It is paid to the IRS same as income tax, and the gov spends every penny of FICA as soon as it arrives into the coffers same as income tax, and it is assessed according to your income. So what the hell is the difference between FICA and income tax?

 

Actually, Income Tax nowadays is "rich folks tax" because po folks don't pay much income tax, and FICA is "po folks tax" because rich folks pay precious little FICA tax. If you are self-employed, your tax rate for FICA ALONE is higher than the capital gains tax Mitt Romney paid on his income. And once you are much above median income you will pay as much income tax as FICA, and pay a rate perhaps twice what Mitt Romney enjoys. Rich folks pay all the taxes my a$$. The gov collects about half the receipts from FICA and about half the receipts from Income Tax. Once you get up around $75,000 your TOTAL tax rate with FICA plus Income Tax is in the same ballpark as the TOTAL tax rate of millionaires.

[LI0NSFAN]

What is also going to hit you is the amount of money your employer spends on your insurance is now taxible income. We looked at it and my wifes company pays 1500 a month for her insurance. That means my wife is now taxed on $18,000 of income we never see. I am sure glad that the $200+ a month we just lost was not taxes or I would be super pissed.

Edited January 7, 2013 by STAHDKnoxville

[RobertY]

What is boils down to is:

 

The wife and I in total will be seeing 4% (2% each) less spending power each month.

The Obummer army that lives off the government will go on as usual blissfully because they do not pay the taxes.

The rich elite will find a few more loop holes and shelters so it will not impact them either.

and congress welll... voted themselves a 3% raise.

 

So, it boils down to the middle class, from the lower to the upper sections, get trampled again.

[mikegideon]

Well, maybe THIS will be simple enough for the folks that voted for Obama. Let's see... Peanut Head gets reelected, and everybody's taxes go up before the coronation. Oh yeah, and they want your guns. This commie crap ain't looking so good all of a sudden.

[mav]

So, it boils down to the middle class, from the lower to the upper sections, get trampled again.

 

 

That is the way it always goes.  When a politician uses the phrase, "We have to protect the middle class." or some similiar phrase, that typically translates to "You might as well grab your ankles because I am about to screw ya."

Edited January 7, 2013 by mav

[mikegideon]

They either reel in spending, or they take more of our money. Obama hasn't been interested in reeling in spending. That just turned into a harsh reality to a lot of folks that just haven't been paying attention.

[DMark]

They have noticed and here they are spending it all......

 

[mcurrier]

Boehner said: "But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/boehner-i-was-stunned-when-obama-told-me-we-dont-have-a-spending-problem/

 

http://nation.foxnews.com/government-spending/2013/01/07/obama-boehner-we-dont-have-spending-problem

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/06/Obama-Boehner-tired-spending

 

--------------

 

 

I’m getting tired of hearing you say that. 

 

You don’t get anything for it. I’m taking that anyway.

 

That’s our president behind closed doors. Of course, that’s frequently him on camera, as well. He’s never had much patience for other views. 

 

Doesn’t that bother Americans?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337073/we-do-not-have-spending-problem-kathryn-jean-lopez#

 

 

Mr. Boehner confirms that at one critical juncture he asked Mr. Obama, after conceding on $800 billion in new taxes, “What am I getting?” and the president replied: “You don’t get anything for it. I’m taking that anyway.”

 

Why has the president been such an immovable force when it comes to cutting spending? “Two reasons,” Mr. Boehner says. “He’s so ideological himself, and he’s unwilling to take on the left wing of his own party.” That reluctance explains why Mr. Obama originally agreed with the Boehner proposal to raise the retirement age for Medicare, the speaker says, but then “pulled back. He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members. But he didn’t even want to try.”

[Blitzen]

Lets see! The most wealthy city (other people's money) on earth is Washington, DC with an unemployment rate of around 3% which means the only people that don't have a job there are ones not looking.  Now they come for more $$$ while telling us they won't and get votes by keeping a large portion of the electorate (low information voter) on the take. We in a heap load full of trouble. What's the number to that ex military guy that advertises on TV non-firearm personal defense training video? After watching "The Walking Dead Season 3" maybe I should have been taking Samurai Sword lessons my whole life. Man that girl is bad !*#!.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well, all they have to do is raise tax a little and mint only two trillion dollar coins every year and every thing will balance fine. Of course if they would only mint four trillion dollar coins every year they could abolish taxes entirely. :)

[kieefer]

I've heard the libs are just as pissed, too funny.

 

WTF did you expect? All of you who couldn't stomach Romney....... :censored: . 

 

4 more years coming but this time he really doesn't give a damn.

[Guest ThePunisher]

It's Bush's fault!

[m16ty]

Boehner said: "But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/boehner-i-was-stunned-when-obama-told-me-we-dont-have-a-spending-problem/

 

http://nation.foxnews.com/government-spending/2013/01/07/obama-boehner-we-dont-have-spending-problem

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/06/Obama-Boehner-tired-spending

 

--------------

 

 

I’m getting tired of hearing you say that. 

 

You don’t get anything for it. I’m taking that anyway.

 

That’s our president behind closed doors. Of course, that’s frequently him on camera, as well. He’s never had much patience for other views. 

 

Doesn’t that bother Americans?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337073/we-do-not-have-spending-problem-kathryn-jean-lopez#

 

 

Mr. Boehner confirms that at one critical juncture he asked Mr. Obama, after conceding on $800 billion in new taxes, “What am I getting?” and the president replied: “You don’t get anything for it. I’m taking that anyway.”

 

Why has the president been such an immovable force when it comes to cutting spending? “Two reasons,” Mr. Boehner says. “He’s so ideological himself, and he’s unwilling to take on the left wing of his own party.” That reluctance explains why Mr. Obama originally agreed with the Boehner proposal to raise the retirement age for Medicare, the speaker says, but then “pulled back. He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members. But he didn’t even want to try.”

Well why in the heck doesn't Boehner stand up to him instead of bowing down? The president can't get anything passed without the House aproving it. It seens he just tells it how he wants it, Boehner complains but then says ok. If the president talked to me like that, I'd tell him to go pound sand and wouldn't let any of his agenda come up for even a vote in the house.

 

I always knew BHO was the worst president we'd ever had but didn't really think he was as radical as some of the tin foil hats made out. Now I'm starting to think otherwise. The way he's acted since the election is just plain scary ( like he's a dictator).

Edited January 8, 2013 by m16ty

[Guest ThePunisher]

[quote name="m16ty" post="878625" timestamp="1357616342"] The way he's acted since the election is just plain scary ( like he's a dictator).[/quote] He is, he's America's first dictator.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I've heard the libs are just as pissed, too funny.

 

WTF did you expect? All of you who couldn't stomach Romney....... :censored: . 

 

4 more years coming but this time he really doesn't give a damn.

 

Doubtful if it would have made any difference. Romney's idea of stimulus would have been kinda like Reagan's-- Do a major tax cut for the wealthy "who pay all the taxes" according to him, for "stimulus". Do a tiny token cut on the middle class, and hike social security tax a couple of percent to "put social security back in the black". A tax Romney and his buds are mostly immune to. And it would have been as when Reagan did it. My total tax rose after Reagan's cut, because he hiked SS more than he cut my income tax rate.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[kieefer]

Doubtful if it would have made any difference. Romney's idea of stimulus would have been kinda like Reagan's-- Do a major tax cut for the wealthy "who pay all the taxes" according to him, for "stimulus". Do a tiny token cut on the middle class, and hike social security tax a couple of percent to "put social security back in the black". A tax Romney and his buds are mostly immune to. And it would have been as when Reagan did it. My total tax rose after Reagan's cut, because he hiked SS more than he cut my income tax rate.

 

You have no idea what Romney would do and making assumptions is trivial. We saw what BHO did in 4yrs and we have a good idea on what he's going to do in the next 4. He's a tax and spend liberal marxist that ignores our Constitution. Anyone besides a liberal democrat would have been better.

[mav]

He's a tax and spend liberal marxist that ignores our Constitution.

 

As far as spending too much and ignoring the Constitution,  I believe that could be said of >80% of the house, and > 90% of the senate. 

 

Perhaps if we are all still around in 2014, we can begin the process for voting a lot of these douchebags out of office.  My only hope, and it isn't much of one, is that people will start voting for the better candidate in the primaries instead of voting for the candidate who is perceived to have a better chance in the general.  It seems to me that the use of the latter strategy hasn't been working out too well the last couple of elections.

 

As I briefly discussed in the OP, I am tired of voting for an indivdual who sucks only slightly less than the other guy.  In those cases, both candidates will lead us down the same path of ruination, only one will do it faster than the other.  Does this mean that I will probably be voting for candidates who will lose?  Probably, but I have taken comfort in the fact that if this country is going to go down, fiscally speaking, I will be satisfied knowing that I am not voting for the very ones who are causing it. 

 

Don't know how everyone else feels, but that is how I have felt for the last couple of years regarding this entire mess.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

You have no idea what Romney would do and making assumptions is trivial. We saw what BHO did in 4yrs and we have a good idea on what he's going to do in the next 4. He's a tax and spend liberal marxist that ignores our Constitution. Anyone besides a liberal democrat would have been better.

 

Hey, Romney's platform was stop the bleeding on social security, which can only be accomplished by higher SS taxes, and also a platform that him and his buddies were the ones who needed tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy. His own effective tax rate of about 15 percent is apparently way too high for him to go out there and "create jobs". You either assume he would have done what he says, or you assume he was lying and had no intention to follow thru.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Seabeejason]

What is also going to hit you is the amount of money your employer spends on your insurance is now taxible income. We looked at it and my wifes company pays 1500 a month for her insurance. That means my wife is now taxed on $18,000 of income we never see. I am sure glad that the $200+ a month we just lost was not taxes or I would be super pissed.

I researched this and I do not think it is true. From what I found they are only making the employers report the amount for data collection purposes.

[LI0NSFAN]

I researched this and I do not think it is true. From what I found they are only making the employers report the amount for data collection purposes.

The payroll dept at wife work said they have to now report insurance as taxable income. They sent out letters stating all the changes to paychecks. We will find out on Friday. They may just be being proactive that way when we claim it at the end of the year we do not take a big hit on our return.

[Guest TNSovereignty]

Sorry to keep bringing up historical precedent in my posts, but we should never be surprised when we see more wealth being confiscated from the middle class.  Statist sociopaths HATE the middle class.  Rampant confiscation & plundering has been going on at full speed since the early 20th century ... specifically read up on The Fed & what was done at Jeckyl Island.  Another stealth 'tax' that nobody seems to notice is inflation.  Anyone who actually goes out & buys stuff - beer, guns, food (including more beer), farm supplies, gas - knows that prices are going up much faster than the gov't stated rate of inflation.  This means our currency is being debased, and this is because the Fed is literally printing $80billion a month ... folks, that's nearly $1trillion a year of green paper entering the economy.  

 

They're plundering us every which way we turn ... our savings are worth less, its costing more to live, and they're confiscating more from our paychecks.  I don't have a clear solution, but I know what the solution is NOT ... statist Republicans.  We need to beat them at their own game; my personal strategy is to emphasize sole proprietorship businesses & encourage people to take their money into the 'shadow' economy, barter & swap co-ops, etc.  The only way to win at this game is to end their system of plundering income before we even see it.  I know everyone can't be a sole proprietor or entrepreneur, but the more young people we steer that way the better.  

 

Besides, has anyone ever thought about the inherent immorality of the income tax?  The way I see it, if the gov't says they're entitled to 25% (or more) of my income, then what they're really saying is they're entitled to 25% of my labor.  Which means I'm 25% enslaved.  What's so moral about being 1/4 slave?  Seems we're often arguing over whether we want to be 25% slave (Republicans) or 50% or more slave (Democrats).  TN has this part right, along w/ the Founders ... the consumption tax & excise tax are the most moral means of generating gov't revenue.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think there should be a couple of (radical) changes to capital gains tax. Am not saying that income tax (and capital gains tax) is either good or bad, but if we got the tax it ought to be at least fair.

 

== 1 == I don't really understand why it is a lower rate than ordinary income tax. Except perhaps capital gains are mainly enjoyed by people on the upper side of median income, who have more political influence on tax rates. For instance consider two cases-- 

 

-- A -- A man saves money many years then goes into business selling widgets. He buys widgets at cost X and sells widgets at cost Y. He pays the ordinary income tax rate on the profit amount of ((Y - X) - BizExpenses). And the fella works his tail off selling widgets.

-- B -- A man saves money many years then buys a piece of real estate for price X. He holds the property for 20 years and sells the real estate for price Y. Assuming he sells for more than he paid, the man must pay the lower capital gains tax based on the same formula profit = ((Y - X) - BizExpenses).

 

What the heck is the difference between these two cases, that the real estate investor deserves a lower rate? Especially since the widget salesman had to work his butt off for the profit but the real estate investor didn't do squat for the profit except hold then sell? Both cases involve the business of buying and selling for profit and ought to be taxed the same IMO.

 

== 2 == Capital gains profit should be inflation adjusted before the standard income tax rate is applied.

 

For instance, if a fellow buys a piece of real estate in 1992 for $100,000 and then sells in 2012 for $200,000, then he must pay the lower capital gains rate on a profit of $100,000, neglecting whatever expenses encountered. However, 100,000 in 1992 is the same value as $164,100 in 2012. So the fellow would have had to sell for at least $164,100 just to break even considering inflation.

 

Therefore, even if the capital gains tax is stupid-low, it is a rip off. If the fellow had sold at an inflation-adjusted loss at $150,000, then the fellow would owe capital gains tax on a paper profit of $50,000, when in actuality he lost $14,100 on the deal, inflation adjusted, and shouldn't owe any tax at all on the transaction. Neither income tax or capital gains tax. He's getting ripped paying tax on a business loss!

 

Therefore, I think capital gains profit should be calculated according to inflation. If the property cost $100,000 in 1992, then that is $164,100 in 2012. So his inflation adjusted profit on a sale at $200,000 ought to justly be -- ($200,000 - $164,100) = $35,900 profit, NOT $100,000 profit. And then pay ordinary income tax rate on the ACTUAL $35,900 profit.

 

The lower capital gains tax KINDA compensates for the inflation on long-held investments, but it isn't precise, and it charges tax on lots of long-term transactions which are actually inflation adjusted losses and should not be owed at all.