Obama's Tax Plan

[Cancel 2016.2]

65k in NYC equates to about 30K in my area....

Which is ANOTHER reason why this proposed cut is so pathetic. IF you are going to do it, it should not be a fixed income level regardless of where you live. It should be adjusted for cost of living. People making $50k in Little Rock are not hurting nearly to the extent as someone who lives in NYC or LA.

 

[Onceler]

Which is ANOTHER reason why this proposed cut is so pathetic. IF you are going to do it, it should not be a fixed income level regardless of where you live. It should be adjusted for cost of living. People making $50k in Little Rock are not hurting nearly to the extent as someone who lives in NYC or LA.

When was the last time a national tax cut or increase was figured on cost of living?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

My very own man? You are too good to me SF! I've never had one before, I wonder how should I dress him?

I am totally ignoring the GW part of this!

Sorry, but if you choose not to accept the man designated as your prize, then your only other option is to take the second place prize... a woman... so congrats... now you get Tiana...


disclaimer: I get to watch

 

[TheDanold]

And you've concluded that "they" have 200-300K homes, in general, by your immense powers of observation & extreme backlog of Danectodal evidence?

I've done a lot of volunteer campaign work and door to door. Went to hundreds of houses and a LOT were seniors living in homes about that range.
I've also worked door to door sales briefly (that was a disaster).

Before that I used to just think that houses were mostly families because that's what you grew up seeing.

 

[Cypress]

Which is ANOTHER reason why this proposed cut is so pathetic. IF you are going to do it, it should not be a fixed income level regardless of where you live. It should be adjusted for cost of living. People making $50k in Little Rock are not hurting nearly to the extent as someone who lives in NYC or LA.

Not possible. Cost of living fluctuates. Not long ago Orlando florida used to be a sleepy little town in the florida swamps. Now, I Imagine its one of flordia's more expensive urban areas. Portland Oregon, has gotten way expensive, it used to be a cheap little northwestern town.

 

[Onceler]

I've done a lot of volunteer campaign work and door to door. Went to hundreds of houses and a LOT were seniors living in homes about that range.
I've also worked door to door sales briefly (that was a disaster).

Before that I used to just think that houses were mostly families because that's what you grew up seeing.

Sorry, but you sound like a total dunce when you pull out examples like this...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

When was the last time a national tax cut or increase was figured on cost of living?

Never, because the moronic politicians never think or understand the need to do so.

The same reason they never factored into social security an increase in the age based on average life expectancy.

 

[Onceler]

Never, because the moronic politicians never think or understand the need to do so.

The same reason they never factored into social security an increase in the age based on average life expectancy.

So...every tax cut that has passed, or every tax cut proposal that is made, is "pathetic" as a result?

 

[Cypress]

Never, because the moronic politicians never think or understand the need to do so.

The same reason they never factored into social security an increase in the age based on average life expectancy.

First, its not moronic to KNOW that cost of living fluctuates in any given area year to year and decade to decade. Its impossible to use a momentary "snapshot" of the cost of living in any area, to codify into tax law.

Second, you're wrong about SS. The age at which you can collect HAS been moved up because of life expectancy.

 

[TheDanold]

First, its not moronic to KNOW that cost of living fluctuates in any given area year to year and decade to decade. Its impossible to use a momentary "snapshot" of the cost of living in any area, to codify into tax law.

Which is a strong argument for why we need less government at the federal level and more run by the states. There really isn't a way around it that would not be overly complex.

 

[TheDanold]

And that being said, one good area to start is for states or even cities to measure poverty levels and never let the federal government do it.

 

[Timshel]

On the above, in order...

1) Your first post is wrong. If you go out an buy GE stock right now, that money does not go to GE. It goes to the person who sold you the stock.

Who then does what with it?

Owning a stock is of little value (small amount of dividends) unless there is a secondary market for the stock. Without the secondary market there would be little money available in the intial offerings.

3) Is wrong. You can take money out of the economy by investing it in foreign economies.

Who then do what with it?

 

[Timshel]

First, its not moronic to KNOW that cost of living fluctuates in any given area year to year and decade to decade. Its impossible to use a momentary "snapshot" of the cost of living in any area, to codify into tax law.

I agree. It would be ridiculously complex and lead to abuse as politicians used it to grant favors to the areas that supported them.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Who then does what with it?

Owning a stock is of little value (small amount of dividends) unless there is a secondary market for the stock. Without the secondary market there would be little money available in the intial offerings.

Who then do what with it?

I already explained what happens with the money invested overseas. What part of that did you not comprehend?

If more money is being invested overseas, just how does that help the local economy?

 

[LadyT]

Well, it isn't an investment. It's insurance.

What type of return do you expect from your health insurance? Auto insurance? Life insurance?

Its supposed to act like an annuity as well which makes it an investment.

 

[LadyT]

Also want to make it clear... we still need to focus on cutting healthcare costs and stopping the ever increasing spiral upwards. But simply handing out tax breaks does nothing but shift the cost from one person to another. It is an attempt to hide the problem. It pisses me off and is bad economic policy. Robbing peter to pay paul is not good policy.

I agree

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I agree. It would be ridiculously complex and lead to abuse as politicians used it to grant favors to the areas that supported them.

This is laughable.... so you think by factoring in cost of living numbers changes whether or not a politician can grant favors to the areas that support them? Big Dig or Bridge to nowhere ring any bells for you?

I said adjust if for cost of living.... not let politicians arbitrarily assign random tax breaks to people they like.

Do you believe the cost of living numbers are not available?

 

[LadyT]

Ummm... wrong.

It most certainly is an investment. It is structured just like an annuity.

Which means you should have upside potential to the money you invest in the plan.

ignore my last post

 

[Cypress]

This is laughable.... so you think by factoring in cost of living numbers changes whether or not a politician can grant favors to the areas that support them? Big Dig or Bridge to nowhere ring any bells for you?

I said adjust if for cost of living.... not let politicians arbitrarily assign random tax breaks to people they like.

Do you believe the cost of living numbers are not available?

Do you even realize how much cost of living can vary within one single county, city, let alone within an entire state? Don't be ridiculous. Just admit you pulled this "plan" out of your ass, with no forethought to the actual complexity, and potential for abuse as RS has pointed out.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Superfreak
On the above, in order...

1) Your first post is wrong. If you go out an buy GE stock right now, that money does not go to GE. It goes to the person who sold you the stock.

Who then does what with it? "

Well gee golly String, there are many different things they could do with it. But none of those things change why Water was wrong in saying that in buying a stock the money goes to the company.