Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-08-2010, 04:32 PM   #81
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
The proposal is to increase the current '99ers' an additional 50 something weeks... IIRC, it was 56 weeks to a total of 155... to me, that is 'three years'...

Your link is for the current program, not the proposed one...
I thought the discussion was about the link in the OP.
Who's proposing another 56 weeks?
__________________

__________________
Independent is online now  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 12-08-2010, 04:45 PM   #82
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 637
So social security in the employees paycheck it appears will go from 6.2% to 4.2% in 2011.
Any goodies in there for the the self employment tax does anyone know??
__________________

__________________
bizlady is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 05:02 PM   #83
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
I thought the discussion was about the link in the OP.
Who's proposing another 56 weeks?

I saw on the news that if the Repubs get the full tax break then the Dems get an additional 56 weeks of unemployment for all the '99ers'....

But like anything in flux.... I could be wrong....
__________________
Texas Proud is online now  
Old 12-08-2010, 05:11 PM   #84
Recycles dryer sheets
EllisWyatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 233
As someone trying to sock away as much as I can in the short window before I pull the plug, I'm thrilled that not only is the govnment NOT taking additional taxes, but -through the 2% SS withholding break - actually helping me in my last year(s?)( I hope not) of accumulation.

I will definately be saving the additional $$, which should help grow the economy. Why? Because, like most people who save, I don't put my cash in a coffee can in the backyard - I invest it in companies who (hopefully) utilize it to grow, which should help the economy (as well as me!).
__________________
EllisWyatt is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 05:15 PM   #85
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
does anyone know how the cap gains taxes are affected by this proposal?
__________________
jdw_fire is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 05:34 PM   #86
Recycles dryer sheets
EllisWyatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 233
As an aside - I'm still trying to figure out the logic of this deal.

According to the NYT, it will cost >$900 billion. Of that, $336 billion cost is the continuation of the current tax rate for those making >$250k/yr (not quite sure how not getting additional revenue is now a cost, but I'll leave that to greater minds)
What has me kerfluffelled is - I heard over and over that we couldn't afford leaving the current tax rates in place for those making over $250K. Question: If we couldn't afford the "cost" of continuing the current tax rates for everyone, how are we going to afford the additional $564 billion that just magically appeared in this bill proposal?

Could we really have afforded the $366 billion in the first place or was the whole arguement just crafted to justify not doing something they didn't agree with ideologically ? Note: the two are obviously not mutually exclusive - we're talking politicians, after all.
__________________
EllisWyatt is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 05:45 PM   #87
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllisWyatt View Post
Could we really have afforded the $366 billion in the first place...
No...

Quote:
...or was the whole arguement just crafted to justify not doing something they didn't agree with ideologically?
Yes
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 05:47 PM   #88
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
As to the question of extending UE benefits, I agree that one should try to get a job - any job. However, if you're a highly educated, and formerly highly paid individual, many businesses will not hire you, because they figure you'll be moving on asap...

Been there, done that...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 05:57 PM   #89
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
I saw on the news that if the Repubs get the full tax break then the Dems get an additional 56 weeks of unemployment for all the '99ers'....

But like anything in flux.... I could be wrong....

This guy says the proposal on the table does NOT extend UI past the 99 weeks.

Kid Dynamite's World: No - People Are Not Collecting 13 More Months of Unemployment Benefits
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 06:10 PM   #90
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Poor people will always vote to have rich people pay for their lives. Why not? Especially when senators are fomenting this class consciousness and dehumanizing the people who would be expected to pay more.

But actually, well off people have no real interest in paying for those that they see as leeches. They are no more fond of these people than the poor people are of the rich demons.

Now I understand that there are plenty of well off people on this board who are quite distributionist- but their love comes cheaply. They might have plenty money, but they intend to keep income low or work other strategies to avoid picking up much if any of the check. In fact, they may even expect to get a net inflow, depending on how things shake out. It is virtue and a feeling of superiority that they can attain cheaply.

I am 100% against it on principle. But the stupidest part of the whole thing is that these RICH PEOPLE (read as devils) are defined as single over $200,000, married over $250,000!

Could anything be more stupid? A school teacher with a masterís in some meaningless discipline married to a middle school principle might easily have this income in many large school districts. Most doctors, many software guys, etc etc, do it single, on one income. Even some rank and file public servants would be at this level or pushing it if their benefits were added back at their true value.

Income inequality doesn't come from any bad faith, it comes from the fact that somewhere along the way the world changed, and for the most part one has to be smart and well disciplined to make good money. Intelligence and discipline come on a bell curve. Most of us have some, a few have very little, and a few have a whole lot. No more $80,000 job machine bolting on panels in Michigan and calling in sick on Monday. Too bad, it made a very nice society while it lasted. Boeing is called the Big Easy, and Detroit once was the same.

And there is a joker too- even if one has the attributes, he had better hope for some luck too.

Some could be addressed at the source, by better industrial and trade policy and a sensible education system and intelligent financial regulation. But none of this is going to happen, take it from me.

It is over, all over, and not going to return. I had the most enlightening conversation a couple days ago with a Japanese woman at an oyster bar. She said living close to China teaches you a lot about reality, and teaches it quickly.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 06:11 PM   #91
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
As to the question of extending UE benefits, I agree that one should try to get a job - any job. However, if you're a highly educated, and formerly highly paid individual, many businesses will not hire you, because they figure you'll be moving on asap...

Been there, done that...
I think that scenario tends to be true. But my own observations (limited and anecdotal - I confess up front) are that some folks with not-in-demand sophisticated skills just assume they won't get that "burger flipper" job and never even try.

Not good.......
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 06:17 PM   #92
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
I am 100% against it on principle. But the stupidest part of the whole thing is that these RICH PEOPLE (read as devils) are defined as single over $200,000, married over $250,000!

Ha
Have you noticed how often that media talking heads and article writers seem to confuse this. I often hear "only people making over $250k will pay the increased tax rates." Actually, the only people who could make $251k and not pay higher taxes would be those married to a spouse with zero income. Not a very expansive group.

I also find it amusing how the media and many politicians refer to those making over $200k as those "millionaires and billionaires." Somehow putting a high school principal and her mid-manager hubby with a combined income of, say, $290k into the same marginal tax bracket as Bill and Melinda Gates seems wrong on so many levels. What are they thinking?

Not to mix this with the remarriage thread running concurrently, but 2 folks each making $200k would have to really be in lovey dovey to marry and take on that tax penalty. Stay single and you're in the second highest bracket. Marry and you're deep into the highest bracket (with no additional combined income). It just doesn't make any sense.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 06:20 PM   #93
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw_fire View Post
does anyone know how the cap gains taxes are affected by this proposal?
The extension also applies to leaving capital gains at 15% and I believe 10% for the lowest bracket (not 100% sure on that), and treating dividends at capital gains. If the cuts expire capital gains go up to 20% and dividends are treated as ordinary income.
__________________
clifp is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 06:33 PM   #94
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
Not to mix this with the remarriage thread running concurrently, but 2 folks each making $200k would have to really be in lovey dovey to marry and take on that tax penalty. Stay single and you're in the second highest bracket. Marry and you're deep into the highest bracket. It just doesn't make any sense.
Certainly true, but then singledom makes a pretty good case for itself even with no help from the tax code.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 07:17 PM   #95
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
But the stupidest part of the whole thing is that these RICH PEOPLE (read as devils) are defined as single over $200,000, married over $250,000!

Could anything be more stupid? A school teacher with a masterís in some meaningless discipline married to a middle school principle might easily have this income in many large school districts.
Easily? Really? You seem to live in a very different world from mine. My wife and I just retired from being college professors, and our combined income, with 39 years of seniority, never came close to $250,000. It was about a quarter of that. That $250,000 sure sounds rich to me.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 07:33 PM   #96
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Now I understand that there are plenty of well off people on this board who are quite distributionist- but their love comes cheaply. They might have plenty money, but they intend to keep income low or work other strategies to avoid picking up much if any of the check. In fact, they may even expect to get a net inflow, depending on how things shake out. It is virtue and a feeling of superiority that they can attain cheaply.
Doing some mind reading again Ha? I have had years where I paid six figures of income taxes, including a pile of AMT. I still was strongly in favor of a progressive tax, still in favor of doing more for the poor. My attitudes never changed with my income or my tax bite.
__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 07:49 PM   #97
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha View Post
Doing some mind reading again Ha? I have had years where I paid six figures of income taxes, including a pile of AMT. I still was strongly in favor of a progressive tax, still in favor of doing more for the poor. My attitudes never changed with my income or my tax bite.
Not mind reading, just me being full of it. Nothing in this world applies to everyone, and my generalization clearly does not apply to you. I knew that when I wrote it. Sometimes I am totally full of it, but I still say it strong.


Bill Gates and Bill Gates Senior share your stand, and they too have something on the line.

I apologize to you , and in advance to anyone else on the board who supports this and will pay up if this soak those nasty fat cats thing comes to pass.

I was just saying, that in general this sort of attitude is cheap for a retired person.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 08:49 PM   #98
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
It is hard to understand. But every effort to turn this into a national issue has fallen flat.
There's been a tremendous sales pitch that's been going on for a couple of decades now that seems to have really made an impact. It's gotten to the point where many folks think the only thing that matters to the economy is the level of marginal tax rates. But don't ask them to reconcile faster growth and lower unemployment during the 1990's when taxes were higher than during all of the 2000's when rates were lower. Or faster growth rates in the 50's when marginal rates were much, much higher.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 08:50 PM   #99
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 21,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Easily? Really? You seem to live in a very different world from mine. My wife and I just retired from being college professors, and our combined income, with 39 years of seniority, never came close to $250,000. It was about a quarter of that. That $250,000 sure sounds rich to me.
I agree. DW and I (engineers) occaisionally grossed more than $250k but by the time you add in your deductions, pay your max 401k ($40k), pay your health insurance premiums before tax, put another few thousand into an FSA and we were tens of thousands of $ below the taxable threshold of $250k. (and we didn't have a mortgage - high earners often have BIG mortgages which also lowers the taxable gross but I suppose may get caught with AMT - we never did)

You have to earn way over $250k to hit a taxable income over $250k, and even then it is only the excess over the higher band that gets taxed at the higher marginal rate (5% more).

So, a couple may earn $300k gross, and can easily have a taxable income of only $250k. All the "lost" taxes reported in the news must be from the uber-wealthy.
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is offline  
Old 12-08-2010, 09:08 PM   #100
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Easily? Really? You seem to live in a very different world from mine. My wife and I just retired from being college professors, and our combined income, with 39 years of seniority, never came close to $250,000. It was about a quarter of that. That $250,000 sure sounds rich to me.
You're wasting your breath. We've had similar conversations here before. The median household income in the U.S. is $50,221 but somehow making 5 times the median never qualifies as "rich" on these boards (and as pointed out above, you probably need to make six or seven times the median to have taxable income of $250k once all of the breaks are figured in). I suspect the disconnect is because this is a well-to-do lot that sees themselves as "middle-class" even when they aren't.
__________________

__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bush tax cuts - when expire bobbee25 FIRE Related Public Policy 12 12-16-2009 11:57 AM
Obama tax cuts BanDit1 FIRE and Money 14 01-05-2009 09:10 PM
tax cuts are harmful bosco Other topics 19 12-29-2006 02:53 PM
Investment tax cuts in the new tax bill Telly FIRE and Money 1 05-23-2003 02:42 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:17 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.